🔗 Share this article

A pair of high-profile critics of former President Trump achieved major court wins on Monday when a US judge threw out the government's charges filed against them.

Over recent weeks following their charges, ex-FBI chief James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have maintained vehemently that they are not guilty, asserting that the president and justice department are merely targeting them for revenge.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie tossed the indictments in their cases due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's invalid assignment as federal prosecutor. However, she left open the possibility for the federal authorities to try again.

• Judge dismisses charges against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• US judge says DOJ errors may have tainted the Comey trial
• What are former FBI head James Comey accused of?

Comey acknowledged that possibility after the decision, saying he believes Trump is likely to target him once more.

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This isn't the last chapter on this issue.

But the government confronts steep obstacles to effectively try either after this defeat, and experts hesitate to forecast what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

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

Might the DOJ appeal?

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

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

In other cases, the Trump administration has strongly challenged adverse decisions, moving cases from lower courts and sometimes accelerating its petitions up to the US Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, pledged to continue to challenge any further politically driven indictments through every lawful means available.

In the event of an appeals process, the DOJ probably would have its own lawyers argue the case, making Halligan's role in the appeals process unclear.

Is it possible there be fresh indictments?

The government accused Comey with making false statements to lawmakers and obstruction of justice. Government lawyers charged James with bank fraud and providing false information to a bank.

Both pleaded not guilty. Besides arguing Halligan's appointment was invalid, they also claimed to be victims of vindictive prosecution.

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

As far as everything I've seen, a new prosecutor could present James's case to a different grand jury and get a new indictment, said Professor Levine.

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

It's clear that it will be hotly contested, whether Mr Comey's case can be re-indicted if a properly assigned attorney is appointed and is able to secure an indictment.

He characterized the complex web of lawyers, judges, and motions involved as a procedural morass with no simple answers.

It could be more difficult for the government to try to bring the exact same charges against James Comey.

One problem is the legal time limit – the time frame that prosecutors had to charge him for these particular claims – which expired at the end of September. However, the dismissal of the charges would trigger a six-month grace period for the DOJ to bring the case again.

Even so in that situation, his lawyers said it plans to argue the prosecution is past the deadline.

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

What is the fate of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings on the charges against James and Comey, Judge Currie was direct: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

Judge Currie wrote in the James decision that the AG's effort to install Ms. Halligan as Interim US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was unlawful.

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

US attorneys are proposed by the US president and need Senate approval. Federal statutes regulate how people can be appointed on a interim basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's appointment had violated these regulations.

This makes Halligan's position on future cases against both individuals, again, unclear.

The decision might also raise doubts on any other cases Halligan has brought in the Virginia Eastern District where she serves.

But Attorney General Bondi said on that day that she designated Halligan a special US attorney and commended her work as excellent.

The administration stood by its stance that Halligan's appointment was legal, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told the press on Monday.