🔗 Share this article

A pair of prominent critics of President Trump achieved major court wins on Monday when a US judge threw out the government's charges against them.

For weeks since their indictments, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have insisted vehemently that they are innocent, asserting that the administration and DOJ are merely targeting them for revenge.

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

• Court throws out charges against ex-FBI director Comey and New York AG James
• Federal judge states DOJ errors may have compromised the Comey trial
• What are former FBI head James Comey charged with?

Comey acknowledged that possibility after the decision, saying he thinks Trump is likely to come after him again.

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

But the government confronts significant obstacles to effectively try either after this defeat, and experts are reluctant to forecast what could occur next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

It feels to me like unexplored legal ground, 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 higher appeals court. In this instance, that would be the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

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

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

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

In the event of an appeal, the DOJ likely would have its own lawyers present the arguments, making Halligan's role in the appeals process unclear.

Could there be fresh indictments?

The federal prosecutors charged James Comey with lying to Congress and obstructing justice. Federal prosecutors indicted James with financial fraud and providing false information to a bank.

Both entered not guilty pleas. In addition to 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 assemble fresh grand juries and secure new indictments.

Based on my analysis, a different attorney could bring James' case to a different grand jury and get a fresh indictment, stated Professor Levine.

But legal expert John Day, head of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complex process – certainly in Comey's case.

I can tell you it will be hotly contested, 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 tangle of lawyers, judges, and legal filings involved as a legal quagmire with no simple answers.

It might be more difficult for the government to try to bring the identical accusations against Comey.

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the deadline that prosecutors had to charge him for these specific allegations – which expired at the close of September. Nonetheless, the dismissal of the charges would trigger a six-month grace period for the DOJ to bring the case again.

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

The ruling also suggests that since the charge is invalid, the statute of limitations has run and there can be no new indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said on 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 Attorney General's attempt to install Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was invalid.

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

US attorneys are nominated by the president and need Senate approval. US laws regulate how individuals can be appointed on a interim basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's appointment had violated these regulations.

That leaves Halligan's position on future cases against both individuals, once more, unclear.

The ruling also could cast a shadow on other cases Halligan has brought in the Virginia Eastern District where she serves.

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

The administration stood by its stance that Halligan was lawfully appointed, press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.