🔗 Share this article

Two well-known critics of former President Trump achieved significant court wins on Monday when a US judge threw out the government's charges against them.

For weeks since their indictments, ex-FBI chief James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have maintained fiercely that they are not guilty, claiming that the administration and DOJ are simply targeting them for retaliation.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie tossed the charges in their cases due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's improper assignment as federal prosecutor. However, she left open the possibility for the government to refile the case.

• Judge dismisses charges against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have tainted Comey case
• What are former FBI head James Comey charged with?

Comey admitted that likelihood after the decision, saying he believes Trump will probably come after him again.

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This will not be the final word on this matter.

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

In my view, it's uncharted territory, said Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Could the DOJ challenge the ruling?

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

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

Previously, the former administration has strongly challenged unfavourable rulings, moving cases from trial courts and sometimes accelerating its requests up to the US Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, vowed to keep fighting any additional politically driven indictments through every lawful means available.

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

Could there be fresh indictments?

The government accused James Comey with lying to lawmakers and obstructing justice. Federal prosecutors indicted James with bank fraud and providing false information to a financial institution.

Each entered not guilty pleas. Besides claiming Halligan's appointment was invalid, they also asserted 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 fresh grand juries and obtain new charges.

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

But John Day, head of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complicated path – especially 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 assigned and is can obtain an charge.

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

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

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the time frame that prosecutors had to indict him for these specific allegations – which ended at the close of September. However, the indictment's dismissal would trigger a half-year extension for the justice department to refile the case.

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

The decision further indicates that because the indictment is invalid, the statute of limitations has run and there can be no further indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said on Monday.

What is the fate of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the indictments against Comey and James, Judge Currie was blunt: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

Judge Currie wrote in the James ruling that the Attorney General's attempt to install Ms. Halligan as Interim US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was unlawful.

As a result, she lacked legal power to file the charges, she wrote.

US attorneys are nominated by the president and need Senate approval. US laws govern how individuals can be assigned on a temporary basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's assignment had breached these laws.

That leaves Halligan's role on future cases against both individuals, once more, unclear.

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 that day that she made her a special federal prosecutor and praised her work as excellent.

The White House maintained its position that Halligan's appointment was legal, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.