🔗 Share this article

Two high-profile critics of former President Trump secured major legal victories on the start of the week when a US judge threw out the government's charges filed against them.

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

Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the indictments in their cases due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's invalid assignment as federal prosecutor. However, she left open the possibility for the federal authorities to try again.

• 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 is ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

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

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This will not be the final word on this issue.

But the government faces steep hurdles to effectively try either after this defeat, and legal analysts are reluctant 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, law professor at Emory University.

Might the justice department challenge the ruling?

The DOJ can contest the judge's decision before a federal appeals court. In this case, that would be the Fourth Circuit Appeals Court.

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

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

Attorney Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, pledged to continue to challenge any additional politically motivated charges through all legal avenues.

If there is an appeal, the justice department likely would have its own attorneys argue the case, making Halligan's role in the appeal uncertain.

Is it possible there be new charges?

The government accused James Comey with lying to Congress and obstructing justice. Government lawyers indicted Letitia James with financial fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

Both entered not guilty pleas. Besides arguing Halligan's appointment was invalid, they also claimed to be targets of vindictive prosecution.

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

Based on my analysis, a new prosecutor could present James's case to a new grand jury and secure a fresh indictment, stated Ms Levine.

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

I can tell you it will be strongly disputed, whether Comey's case can be recharged if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is appointed and is can obtain an indictment.

He characterized the tangle of attorneys, judges, and legal filings involved as a legal quagmire with no easy solutions.

It could be harder for the DOJ to try to bring the identical accusations against Comey.

One problem is the legal time limit – the deadline that prosecutors had to charge Comey for these specific allegations – 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 plans to contend the government is out of time.

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

What is the fate of Lindsey Halligan?

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

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

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

Federal prosecutors are proposed by the president and require Senate approval. US laws regulate how individuals can be appointed on a temporary basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's appointment had breached these laws.

This makes Halligan's position on future cases against both individuals, again, uncertain.

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

But Bondi said on Monday that she designated Halligan a special federal prosecutor and commended her work as outstanding.

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