🔗 Share this article

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

Over recent weeks following their charges, ex-FBI chief James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have argued fiercely that they are not guilty, claiming that the administration and DOJ are simply singling out them for revenge.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges in their cases due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's improper assignment as federal prosecutor. However, she left the door open for the government to try again.

• Judge dismisses cases against former FBI chief Comey and New York AG James
• US judge says DOJ errors may have tainted the Comey trial
• What is former FBI head James Comey accused of?

Comey admitted that likelihood after the decision, saying he believes Trump is likely to target him again.

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This isn't the last chapter on this matter.

But the government confronts steep hurdles to effectively try both after this setback, and legal analysts are reluctant to forecast what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

It feels to me like unexplored legal ground, said Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Could the DOJ appeal?

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

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

Previously, the former administration has aggressively appealed adverse decisions, taking cases from lower courts and sometimes fast-tracking its requests up to the US Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, pledged to continue to challenge any additional politically motivated charges through all legal avenues.

If there is an appeals process, the DOJ likely would have its own lawyers argue the case, making Halligan's role in the appeal unclear.

Is it possible there be new charges?

The government charged Comey with making false statements to Congress and obstructing justice. Government lawyers charged James with bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

Both pleaded not guilty. Besides arguing Halligan's appointment was invalid, both also claimed to be victims of vindictive prosecution.

With the original indictments thrown out (although appeals might alter this), the DOJ might try to convene fresh grand juries and obtain new charges.

As far as everything I've seen, a different attorney could present James's case to a different grand jury and secure a fresh indictment, said Ms Levine.

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

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

He described the complex web of lawyers, judges, and legal filings involved as a legal quagmire with no simple answers.

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

A key issue is the legal time limit – the time frame that government lawyers had to charge him for these specific allegations – which ended at the end of September. Nonetheless, the indictment's dismissal would trigger a half-year extension for the justice department to bring the case again.

Still in that situation, his legal team said it intends to contend the government is out of time.

The ruling also suggests that because the charge is invalid, the time limit has expired and there can be no further indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said on Monday.

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the indictments against Comey and James, the judge was blunt: Halligan's appointment was improper.

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

As a result, she had no lawful authority to file the charges, she wrote.

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

That leaves Halligan's position on subsequent cases against James and Comey, once more, uncertain.

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

But Bondi said on that day that she made Halligan a special federal prosecutor and praised her work as outstanding.

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