🔗 Share this article

Two high-profile critics of President Trump achieved major legal victories on the start of the week when a federal judge dismissed the federal indictments filed against them.

For weeks since their indictments, former FBI Director James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have argued fiercely that they are innocent, claiming that the president and justice department are simply singling out them for retaliation.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges against them due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's improper assignment as federal prosecutor. But she also left open the possibility for the federal authorities to try again.

• Court throws out cases against former FBI chief Comey and New York AG James
• US judge says government 'missteps' may have tainted the Comey trial
• What is ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

Comey admitted that likelihood after the ruling, stating he believes the former president will probably target him again.

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

But the DOJ confronts significant obstacles to effectively try both after this setback, and experts hesitate to forecast what could happen next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

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

Might the DOJ appeal?

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

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

In other cases, the Trump administration has strongly challenged unfavourable rulings, taking cases from lower courts and sometimes accelerating its requests up to the US Supreme Court.

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

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

Could there be new charges?

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

Each entered not guilty pleas. In addition to claiming Halligan was unlawfully appointed, they also asserted to be victims of vindictive prosecution.

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 charges.

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

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

I can tell you it will be hotly contested, whether Mr Comey's case can be re-indicted if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is assigned and is able to secure an indictment.

He described the complex web of attorneys, courts, and motions involved as a procedural morass with no simple answers.

It could be harder for the government to try to file the exact same charges against James Comey.

A key issue is the legal time limit – the time frame that government lawyers had to charge him for these specific allegations – which expired at the close of September. Nonetheless, the dismissal of the charges would activate a six-month grace period for the DOJ to refile the case.

Even so in that situation, his legal team said it intends to contend the prosecution is past the deadline.

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

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the charges against James and Comey, Judge Currie was blunt: Halligan's appointment was improper.

The judge stated in the James ruling that the AG's effort to appoint Ms. Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was invalid.

As a result, she had no lawful authority to present the indictment, she wrote.

Federal prosecutors are proposed by the president and require US Senate confirmation. Federal statutes regulate how individuals can be appointed on a interim basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's appointment had breached these laws.

This makes Halligan's position on subsequent cases against both individuals, once more, uncertain.

The decision might also cast a shadow on any other cases Halligan has brought in the Eastern District of Virginia where she serves.

But Bondi said on that day that she made her a special US attorney and praised her work as excellent.

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