🔗 Share this article

Two prominent critics of former President Trump secured major court wins on Monday when a US judge dismissed the government's charges against them.

For weeks since their indictments, former FBI Director James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have maintained fiercely that they are innocent, asserting that the president and justice department are simply targeting them for retaliation.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the indictments against them due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's improper assignment as US attorney. But she also left open the possibility for the government to refile the case.

• Court throws out charges against ex-FBI director Comey and NY attorney general James
• US judge says DOJ errors may have tainted the Comey trial
• What is ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

Comey admitted that possibility after the ruling, saying he thinks the former president will probably target him again.

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This will not be the final word on this issue.

But the DOJ faces significant obstacles to successfully prosecute both after this setback, and experts hesitate to forecast what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

It feels to me like unexplored legal ground, said Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Could the justice department challenge the ruling?

The DOJ can challenge Judge Currie's ruling before a federal appeals court. In this case, that would be the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

US Attorney General Pam Bondi signaled she would take this route, pledging to use all available legal action, including an immediate appeal.

In other cases, the Trump administration has aggressively appealed unfavourable rulings, moving cases from lower courts and sometimes fast-tracking its requests up to the Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, vowed to continue to challenge any additional politically motivated charges through all legal avenues.

In the event of an appeal, the justice department likely would have its own attorneys argue the case, making Halligan's role in the appeals process unclear.

Could there be fresh indictments?

The federal prosecutors charged Comey with making false statements to Congress and obstructing justice. Federal prosecutors indicted James with financial fraud and providing false information to a financial institution.

Both entered not guilty pleas. Besides arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also asserted to be targets of retaliatory legal action.

With the original indictments thrown out (although appeals might alter this), the government might try to convene fresh grand juries and obtain new indictments.

As far as everything I've seen, a different attorney could present James's case to a different grand jury and get a fresh indictment, stated Ms Levine.

But legal expert John Day, president of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complicated path – certainly in the Comey matter.

It's clear that it will be strongly disputed, whether Mr Comey's case can be recharged if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is appointed and is able to secure an indictment.

He described the tangle of attorneys, judges, and motions involved as a procedural morass with no easy solutions.

It might be harder for the DOJ to try to bring the exact same charges against James Comey.

One problem is the statute of limitations – the deadline that prosecutors had to indict Comey for these specific allegations – which expired at the end of September. However, the dismissal of the charges would activate a six-month grace period for the DOJ to bring the case again.

Even so in that case, his lawyers said it intends to argue the government is past the deadline.

The decision further indicates that since the indictment is invalid, the time limit has run and there can be no new indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What is the fate of Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the charges against James and Comey, Judge Currie was blunt: Halligan's appointment was improper.

The judge stated in the James decision that the AG's effort to install Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was unlawful.

As a result, Halligan had no lawful authority to present the indictment, she wrote.

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

That leaves Halligan's role on future cases against James and Comey, again, uncertain.

The ruling also could raise doubts on other cases Halligan has brought in the Eastern District of Virginia where she serves.

But Attorney General Bondi said on Monday that she made her a special federal prosecutor and commended her work as excellent.

The White House stood by its stance that Halligan was lawfully appointed, press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.