🔗 Share this article

Two prominent critics of former President Trump obtained significant legal victories on Monday when a US judge threw out the government's charges against them.

For weeks following their charges, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have maintained vehemently that they are innocent, asserting that the president and justice department are merely singling out them for retaliation.

US District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges in their cases due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's invalid appointment as US attorney. But she also left the door open for the government to try again.

• Judge dismisses cases against former FBI chief Comey and New York AG James
• US judge says DOJ errors may have tainted Comey case
• What are former FBI head James Comey accused of?

Comey acknowledged that likelihood after the decision, saying he believes Trump will probably target him again.

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This isn't the final word on this matter.

But the DOJ confronts steep obstacles to successfully prosecute either after this setback, and legal analysts are reluctant to predict what could occur next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

It feels to me like uncharted territory, stated Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Might the DOJ appeal?

The Department of Justice can contest the judge's decision before a federal appeals court. In this instance, that would be the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

US Attorney General Pam Bondi signaled she would pursue this option, vowing to use all legal means, including an immediate appeal.

Previously, the Trump administration has strongly challenged unfavourable rulings, taking cases from trial courts and sometimes accelerating its petitions up to the Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, vowed to continue to challenge any additional politically driven indictments through all legal avenues.

If there is an appeals process, the DOJ likely would have its own attorneys present the arguments, making Halligan's role in the appeal unclear.

Could there be fresh indictments?

The government accused Comey with making false statements to lawmakers and obstruction of justice. Federal prosecutors charged James with bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

Each pleaded not guilty. Besides claiming Halligan was unlawfully appointed, they also claimed to be victims of vindictive prosecution.

Since the initial charges were dismissed (though, of course, appeals could change that), the government might try to convene fresh grand juries and obtain new indictments.

Based on my analysis, a different attorney could bring James' case to a different grand jury and get a new indictment, stated Professor Levine.

But legal expert John Day, president of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complex process – especially in the Comey matter.

I can tell you it will be hotly contested, whether Mr Comey's case can be re-indicted if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is assigned and is able to secure an charge.

He characterized the tangle of lawyers, judges, and legal filings involved as a legal quagmire with no simple answers.

It could be more difficult for the DOJ to try to file the identical accusations against Comey.

A key issue is the legal time limit – the deadline that prosecutors had to charge Comey for these particular claims – which ended at the end of September. However, the dismissal of the charges would activate a six-month grace period for the justice department to bring the case again.

Still in that case, his legal team said it plans to contend the government is past the deadline.

The ruling also suggests that since the charge is invalid, the time limit has run and there can be no new indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What is the fate of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings on the indictments against James and Comey, Judge Currie was direct: Halligan's appointment was improper.

Judge Currie wrote in the James decision that the Attorney General's attempt to install Ms. Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was invalid.

As a result, she had no lawful authority to file the charges, she wrote.

Federal prosecutors are nominated by the US president and require US Senate confirmation. US laws regulate how individuals can be assigned on a temporary basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's appointment had violated these laws.

That leaves Halligan's role on subsequent cases against James and Comey, again, unclear.

The ruling also could cast a shadow on other cases Halligan has prosecuted in the Virginia Eastern District where she serves.

But Attorney General Bondi said on Monday that she made Halligan a special federal prosecutor and praised her work as outstanding.

The White House maintained its position that Halligan's appointment was legal, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.