🔗 Share this article

Two high-profile critics of former President Trump secured significant court wins on the start of the week when a US judge threw out the government's charges against them.

For weeks since their indictments, former FBI Director James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have insisted fiercely that they are innocent, claiming that the administration and DOJ are merely singling out them for revenge.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie tossed the indictments in their cases due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's invalid appointment as federal prosecutor. However, she left the door open for the government to try again.

• Court throws out cases against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states DOJ errors may have tainted the Comey trial
• What is former FBI head James Comey charged with?

Comey acknowledged that possibility after the decision, stating he thinks Trump is likely to 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 obstacles to effectively try either after this defeat, and legal analysts hesitate to forecast what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

In my view, it's unexplored legal ground, said Professor Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Might the justice department appeal?

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

Attorney General Pam Bondi indicated 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, moving cases from trial courts and sometimes accelerating its requests up to the Supreme Court.

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

If there is an appeals process, the DOJ probably would have its own attorneys present the arguments, making Halligan's involvement in the appeal uncertain.

Is it possible there be new charges?

The federal prosecutors accused Comey with lying to lawmakers and obstruction of justice. Government lawyers charged Letitia James with bank fraud and providing false information to a financial institution.

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

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

As far as everything I've seen, a different attorney could bring James' case to a different grand jury and get a new indictment, said Professor Levine.

But legal expert John Day, president 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 recharged if a properly assigned attorney is assigned and is can obtain an charge.

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

It might be more difficult for the government to try to file the exact same charges against James Comey.

One problem is the statute of limitations – the deadline that government lawyers had to charge him for these particular claims – which expired at the close of September. Nonetheless, the dismissal of the charges would activate a half-year extension for the DOJ to refile the case.

Even so in that case, his legal team said it intends to contend the government is out of time.

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

What is the fate of Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings on the indictments against Comey and James, Judge Currie was direct: Halligan's appointment was improper.

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

As a result, Halligan lacked legal power to file the charges, the judge wrote.

US attorneys are proposed by the US president and need US Senate confirmation. US laws govern how people can be assigned on a temporary basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's appointment had violated these regulations.

That leaves 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 serves.

But Bondi said on that day that she made Halligan a special federal prosecutor and praised 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.