🔗 Share this article

A pair of well-known critics of former President Trump achieved significant legal victories on the start of the week when a federal judge threw out the government's charges filed against them.

For weeks since their indictments, ex-FBI chief James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have argued vehemently that they are not guilty, asserting that the president and justice department are simply singling out them for retaliation.

US District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the indictments against them due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's improper appointment as federal prosecutor. However, she left the door open for the federal authorities to refile the case.

• Court throws out cases against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have tainted the Comey trial
• What is ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

Comey admitted that likelihood after the decision, stating he thinks Trump will probably come after him once more.

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

But the government faces significant obstacles to effectively try either after this defeat, and legal analysts are reluctant to predict what could happen next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

In my view, it's unexplored legal ground, stated Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Could the justice department challenge the ruling?

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

US Attorney General Pam Bondi indicated she would take this route, vowing to use all legal means, including an immediate appeal.

In other cases, the former administration has aggressively appealed adverse decisions, moving cases from trial courts and sometimes accelerating its requests up to the US Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, vowed to keep fighting any additional politically motivated charges through every lawful means available.

In the event of an appeals process, the justice department likely would have its own attorneys present the arguments, making Halligan's involvement in the appeals process unclear.

Is it possible there be new charges?

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

Both pleaded not guilty. In addition to arguing Halligan's appointment was invalid, they also asserted to be targets of retaliatory legal action.

Since the initial charges were dismissed (although appeals might alter this), the government might try to assemble fresh 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, said Professor Levine.

But 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 strongly disputed, whether Mr Comey's case can be recharged if a properly assigned attorney is assigned and is can obtain an charge.

He described the complex web of lawyers, courts, and legal filings involved as a legal quagmire with no easy solutions.

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

One problem 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 trigger a half-year extension for the DOJ to refile the case.

Still in that situation, his lawyers said it plans to contend the prosecution is out of time.

The decision further indicates that since the charge is void, the statute of limitations has expired and there can be no new indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said on Monday.

What is the fate of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

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

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

Therefore, she lacked legal power to file the charges, she wrote.

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

That leaves Halligan's role on subsequent cases against both individuals, once more, uncertain.

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

But Bondi said on Monday that she designated her a special US attorney and commended her work as excellent.

The administration maintained its position that Halligan's appointment was legal, press secretary Karoline Leavitt told the press on Monday.