🔗 Share this article

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

For weeks following their charges, ex-FBI chief James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have maintained vehemently that they are innocent, asserting that the president and justice department are simply targeting them for retaliation.

US District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the indictments in their cases due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's invalid 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 New York AG James
• Federal judge states DOJ errors may have tainted Comey case
• What are 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 spokeswoman Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This will not be the final word on this issue.

But the government faces significant hurdles to successfully prosecute either after this defeat, and legal analysts hesitate to forecast what could happen next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

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

Could the justice department appeal?

The DOJ can contest Judge Currie's ruling before a higher appeals court. In this instance, 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 Trump administration has aggressively appealed unfavourable rulings, moving cases from lower courts and sometimes fast-tracking its petitions up to the Supreme Court.

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

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

Is it possible there be new charges?

The federal prosecutors accused James Comey with making false statements to Congress and obstructing justice. Government lawyers indicted James with bank fraud and providing false information to a bank.

Each pleaded not guilty. Besides arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, they also asserted to be victims of vindictive prosecution.

With the original indictments thrown out (though, of course, appeals could change that), the government might try to assemble new grand juries and obtain new indictments.

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

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

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

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

It could be more difficult for the DOJ to try to bring the exact same charges against Comey.

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the deadline that government lawyers had to charge Comey for these particular claims – which expired at the end of September. However, the dismissal of the charges would activate a six-month grace period for the DOJ to refile the case.

Still in that situation, his legal team said it intends to contend the government is past the deadline.

The decision further indicates that because the charge is void, the time limit has expired and there can be no new indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What is the fate of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

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

The judge stated in the James decision that the Attorney General's attempt to install Ms. Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was invalid.

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

US attorneys are proposed by the president and require US Senate confirmation. US laws govern how people can be appointed on a interim basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's assignment had violated these laws.

That leaves Halligan's position on future cases against both individuals, again, unclear.

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

But Attorney General Bondi said on Monday that she made Halligan a special federal prosecutor and praised her work as excellent.

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