🔗 Share this article

Two prominent critics of former President Trump achieved major court wins on Monday when a federal judge dismissed 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 innocent, claiming that the president and justice department are merely targeting them for revenge.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie tossed the indictments against them due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's invalid appointment as federal prosecutor. But she also left the door open for the federal authorities to refile the case.

• Judge dismisses charges against former FBI chief Comey and New York AG James
• Federal judge states DOJ errors may have tainted Comey case
• What is former FBI head James Comey accused of?

Comey admitted that likelihood after the decision, saying he thinks the former president is likely to come after him again.

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

But the DOJ confronts steep hurdles to successfully prosecute either after this setback, and legal analysts hesitate to predict what could occur next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

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

Might the justice department challenge the ruling?

The DOJ can contest the judge's decision before a federal appeals court. In this case, that would be the Fourth Circuit Appeals Court.

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

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

Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, pledged to continue to challenge any further politically motivated charges through every lawful means available.

In the event of an appeals process, the justice department probably would have its own lawyers argue the case, making Halligan's involvement in the appeals process unclear.

Could there be fresh indictments?

The federal prosecutors charged James Comey with lying to Congress and obstructing justice. Government lawyers indicted James with financial fraud and providing false information to a financial institution.

Each entered not guilty pleas. Besides arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, they also asserted to be victims of retaliatory legal action.

Since the initial charges were dismissed (although appeals might alter this), the government might try to convene fresh grand juries and secure new indictments.

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

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

I can tell you it will be hotly contested, whether Mr Comey's case can be recharged if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is appointed and is can obtain an charge.

He characterized the tangle of lawyers, courts, and legal filings involved as a legal quagmire with no simple answers.

It might be harder 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 charge Comey for these particular claims – which ended at the close of September. Nonetheless, the indictment's dismissal would activate a six-month grace period for the DOJ to bring the case again.

Even so in that case, his lawyers said it plans to contend the prosecution is past the deadline.

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

What happens to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings on the charges against James and Comey, Judge Currie was direct: Halligan's appointment was improper.

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

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

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

This makes Halligan's role on future cases against both individuals, once more, uncertain.

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

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

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