🔗 Share this article

A pair of high-profile critics of President Trump obtained significant court wins on Monday when a federal judge threw out the government's charges filed against them.

Over recent weeks since their indictments, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have argued vehemently that they are innocent, claiming that the president and justice department are simply singling out them for retaliation.

US District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the indictments in their cases due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's improper appointment as US attorney. However, she left open the possibility for the government to refile the case.

• Court throws out cases against ex-FBI director Comey and NY attorney general James
• US judge says government 'missteps' may have tainted the Comey trial
• What are former FBI head James Comey charged with?

Comey acknowledged that likelihood after the decision, saying he thinks the former president is likely to target him once more.

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This will not be the final word on this matter.

But the government faces significant hurdles to effectively try either after this setback, and legal analysts hesitate to forecast what could occur next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

It feels to me like uncharted territory, stated Professor Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Might the DOJ challenge the ruling?

The Department of Justice can challenge the judge's decision before a federal appeals court. In this instance, 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 immediate appeal.

Previously, the former administration has strongly challenged adverse decisions, taking cases from trial courts and sometimes accelerating its petitions up to the Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, vowed to keep fighting any further politically motivated charges through every lawful means available.

In the event of an appeal, the DOJ probably would have its own lawyers argue the case, making Halligan's involvement in the appeal uncertain.

Could there be fresh indictments?

The federal prosecutors accused James Comey with lying to Congress and obstruction of justice. Government lawyers indicted Letitia James with bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

Each entered not guilty pleas. Besides claiming Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also claimed to be targets of vindictive prosecution.

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

Based on my analysis, a new prosecutor could bring James' case to a new grand jury and secure a new 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.

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

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

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

One problem is the legal time limit – the time frame 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 six-month grace period for the DOJ to bring the case again.

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

The ruling also suggests that since the indictment is invalid, the statute of limitations has expired and there can be no further indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said on Monday.

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the indictments against Comey and James, Judge Currie was blunt: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

Judge Currie wrote in the James ruling that the AG's effort to install Ms. Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was invalid.

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

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

This makes Halligan's role on future cases against James and Comey, again, unclear.

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

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

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