🔗 Share this article

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

Over recent weeks following their charges, ex-FBI chief James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have insisted vehemently that they are not guilty, claiming that the administration and DOJ are merely singling out them for retaliation.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges against them due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's improper appointment as US attorney. However, she left the door open for the federal authorities to try again.

• Judge dismisses charges against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have compromised Comey case
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey accused of?

Comey acknowledged that likelihood after the ruling, saying he believes the former president will probably come after him once more.

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

But the government confronts steep hurdles to effectively try both after this setback, and experts hesitate to predict what could occur next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

It feels to me like unexplored legal ground, said Professor Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Could the DOJ appeal?

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

Attorney General Pam Bondi indicated she would pursue this option, vowing to use all available legal action, including an immediate appeal.

In other cases, the former administration has strongly challenged unfavourable rulings, moving cases from trial courts and sometimes accelerating its requests up to the Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, vowed to continue to challenge any further politically driven indictments through every lawful means available.

In the event of an appeal, the DOJ likely would have its own lawyers argue the case, making Halligan's role in the appeal unclear.

Is it possible there be fresh indictments?

The federal prosecutors charged Comey with making false statements to Congress and obstruction of justice. Government lawyers charged James with financial fraud and making false statements to a bank.

Each pleaded not guilty. In addition to arguing Halligan's appointment was invalid, they also claimed to be targets of vindictive prosecution.

Since the initial charges were dismissed (though, of course, appeals could change that), the government might try to assemble fresh grand juries and secure new indictments.

Based on my analysis, a new prosecutor could present James's case to a different grand jury and get a fresh indictment, stated 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 strongly disputed, whether Comey's case can be re-indicted if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is appointed and is able to secure an indictment.

He characterized the complex web of lawyers, judges, and legal filings involved as a procedural morass with no simple answers.

It might be harder for the government to try to bring the identical accusations against James Comey.

One problem is the statute of limitations – the time frame that prosecutors had to charge him for these particular claims – which ended at the close of September. Nonetheless, the dismissal of the charges would activate a six-month grace period for the DOJ to refile the case.

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

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

What happens to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

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

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

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

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

This makes Halligan's position on subsequent cases against James and Comey, again, uncertain.

The ruling also could cast a shadow on 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 outstanding.

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