🔗 Share this article

A pair of prominent critics of former President Trump obtained major legal victories on Monday when a US judge dismissed the federal indictments filed against them.

Over recent weeks following their charges, ex-FBI chief James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have insisted vehemently that they are not guilty, claiming that the president and justice department are merely singling out them for revenge.

US District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges in their cases due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's improper assignment as federal prosecutor. However, she left open the possibility for the federal authorities to try again.

• Judge dismisses charges against ex-FBI director Comey and New York AG James
• US judge says government 'missteps' may have compromised Comey case
• What is ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

Comey admitted that likelihood after the decision, stating he thinks the former president is likely to target him once more.

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This will not be the last chapter on this matter.

But the government faces significant hurdles to effectively try both after this setback, and experts are reluctant to forecast what could occur next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

It feels to me like unexplored legal ground, said Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Could the justice department appeal?

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

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

Previously, the Trump administration has strongly challenged unfavourable rulings, moving cases from trial courts and sometimes fast-tracking its requests up to the Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, vowed to continue to challenge any further politically motivated charges through every lawful means available.

If there is an appeal, the justice department probably would have its own lawyers present the arguments, making Halligan's involvement in the appeals process uncertain.

Is it possible there be new charges?

The government accused James Comey with lying to Congress and obstruction of justice. Government lawyers charged James with bank fraud and providing false information to a financial institution.

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

With the original indictments thrown out (though, of course, appeals could change that), the government might try to convene fresh grand juries and obtain new charges.

Based on my analysis, a new prosecutor could present James's case to a new grand jury and get a new indictment, said Ms Levine.

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

I can tell you it will be strongly disputed, whether Mr Comey's case can be re-indicted if a properly assigned attorney is appointed and is can obtain an indictment.

He characterized the complex web of attorneys, courts, and motions involved as a procedural morass with no easy solutions.

It might be harder for the DOJ to try to file the identical accusations against James Comey.

A key issue is the legal time limit – the time frame that government lawyers had to charge Comey for these particular claims – which expired at the end of September. Nonetheless, the dismissal of the charges would trigger a six-month grace period for the justice department to refile the case.

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

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

What is the fate of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the charges against Comey and James, the judge was blunt: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

Judge Currie wrote in the James decision that the Attorney General's attempt to install Ms. Halligan as Interim 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 proposed by the US president and need Senate approval. Federal statutes govern how people can be assigned on a interim basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's assignment had violated these regulations.

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

The ruling also could raise doubts on any other cases Halligan has prosecuted 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 outstanding.

The administration maintained its position that Halligan was lawfully appointed, press secretary Karoline Leavitt told the press on Monday.