🔗 Share this article

A pair of well-known critics of former President Trump achieved significant legal victories on Monday when a US judge dismissed the government's charges filed against them.

For weeks since their indictments, former FBI Director James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have insisted vehemently that they are not guilty, asserting that the administration and DOJ are merely singling out them for revenge.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie tossed the indictments against them due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's improper assignment as federal prosecutor. However, she left open the possibility for the government to try again.

• Court throws out cases against ex-FBI director Comey and New York AG James
• Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have tainted the Comey trial
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey accused of?

Comey acknowledged that possibility after the ruling, stating he thinks the former president is likely to target him once more.

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This isn't the last chapter on this issue.

But the DOJ faces steep hurdles to effectively try both after this setback, and experts 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, Emory University School of Law professor.

Could the DOJ appeal?

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

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

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

Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, vowed to continue to challenge any further politically motivated charges through all legal avenues.

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

Could there be new charges?

The federal prosecutors accused Comey with lying to lawmakers and obstructing justice. Federal prosecutors charged Letitia James with financial fraud and making false statements to a bank.

Both pleaded not guilty. Besides claiming Halligan's appointment was invalid, both also claimed to be victims of retaliatory legal action.

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

Based on my analysis, a new prosecutor could bring James' case to a different grand jury and get a new indictment, stated Ms 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.

It's clear that it will be hotly contested, whether 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 legal quagmire with no easy solutions.

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

A key issue is the legal time limit – 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 trigger a half-year extension for the justice department to bring the case again.

Still in that case, his legal team said it intends to argue the prosecution is past the deadline.

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

What is the fate of Lindsey Halligan?

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

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

Therefore, she lacked legal power to present the indictment, the judge wrote.

US attorneys are nominated by the president and need Senate approval. US laws regulate how people can be appointed on a temporary basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's appointment had violated these laws.

This makes Halligan's role on subsequent cases against both individuals, again, unclear.

The decision might also raise doubts on any other cases Halligan has brought in the Eastern District of Virginia where she works.

But Bondi said on that day that she made Halligan a special US attorney 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.