🔗 Share this article

A pair of prominent critics of President Trump achieved significant court wins on the start of the week when a US judge dismissed the federal indictments against them.

Over recent weeks since their indictments, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have argued fiercely that they are not guilty, asserting that the administration and DOJ are simply targeting them for revenge.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie tossed the charges against them due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's invalid appointment as federal prosecutor. But she also left open the possibility for the government to try again.

• Court throws out charges against ex-FBI director Comey and NY attorney general James
• US judge says government 'missteps' may have compromised the Comey trial
• What are former FBI head James Comey accused of?

Comey admitted that likelihood after the decision, stating he believes Trump is likely to target him once more.

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This isn't the final word on this issue.

But the DOJ faces steep hurdles to successfully prosecute both after this setback, and legal analysts hesitate to forecast what could occur next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

In my view, it's uncharted territory, said Professor Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Might the justice department challenge the ruling?

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

US Attorney General Pam Bondi indicated she would pursue this option, pledging to use all available legal action, including an immediate appeal.

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

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

In the event of an appeals process, the DOJ probably would have its own lawyers present the arguments, making Halligan's role in the appeal uncertain.

Could there be new charges?

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

Both pleaded not guilty. In addition to arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also claimed to be targets of retaliatory legal action.

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

As far as everything I've seen, a new prosecutor could present James's case to a new 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 complex process – especially in the Comey matter.

It's clear that it will be strongly disputed, whether Comey's case can be re-indicted if a properly assigned attorney is assigned and is can obtain an indictment.

He described the complex web of attorneys, judges, and motions involved as a legal quagmire with no easy solutions.

It could be harder for the DOJ to try to bring the identical accusations 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 close of September. Nonetheless, the dismissal of the charges would activate a half-year extension for the DOJ to bring the case again.

Even so in that case, his lawyers said it plans to contend the government is out of time.

The decision further indicates that because the charge is invalid, the time limit has expired and there can be no new indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said on Monday.

What is the fate of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings on the indictments against James and Comey, the judge was direct: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

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

As a result, she lacked legal power to present the indictment, she wrote.

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

This makes Halligan's role on future cases against James and Comey, again, unclear.

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

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

The White House maintained its position that Halligan was lawfully appointed, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.