🔗 Share this article

A pair of well-known critics of President Trump obtained major court wins on the start of the week when a federal judge dismissed 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 maintained fiercely that they are innocent, asserting that the administration and DOJ are merely targeting them for retaliation.

US District Judge Cameron Currie tossed the indictments in their cases due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's improper appointment as US attorney. But she also left open the possibility for the government to try again.

• Judge dismisses charges against ex-FBI director Comey and New York AG James
• US judge says government 'missteps' may have compromised Comey case
• What is ex-FBI director 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 appeared to agree: This will not be the final word on this matter.

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

It feels to me like uncharted territory, said Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Could the justice department challenge the ruling?

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

US Attorney General Pam Bondi signaled she would pursue this option, vowing to use all legal means, including an immediate appeal.

Previously, the former administration has strongly challenged adverse decisions, taking cases from lower courts and sometimes fast-tracking its requests up to the Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, vowed to keep fighting any further politically driven indictments through all legal avenues.

If there is an appeals process, the justice department probably would have its own attorneys present the arguments, 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 obstructing justice. Federal prosecutors indicted James with financial fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

Both pleaded not guilty. In addition to claiming Halligan was unlawfully appointed, they also asserted to be victims of retaliatory legal action.

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

As far as everything I've seen, a different attorney could present James's case to a new grand jury and secure a fresh indictment, said Ms Levine.

But John Day, president of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complex process – especially in the Comey matter.

I can tell you it will be strongly disputed, whether Mr Comey's case can be re-indicted if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is appointed and is able to secure an charge.

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

It could be more difficult for the DOJ to try to file the identical accusations against Comey.

One problem is the statute of limitations – the deadline that prosecutors had to charge Comey for these particular claims – which ended at the end of September. However, the dismissal of the charges would activate a six-month grace period for the DOJ to bring the case again.

Still in that case, his legal team said it intends to argue the government is out of time.

The ruling also suggests that because the indictment is void, the time limit 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, the judge was direct: Halligan's appointment was improper.

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 invalid.

Therefore, Halligan lacked legal power to file the charges, the judge wrote.

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

That leaves Halligan's role on subsequent cases against both individuals, again, unclear.

The decision might also raise doubts on other cases Halligan has brought in the Virginia Eastern District where she works.

But Attorney General Bondi said on Monday that she designated her a special US attorney and praised her work as excellent.

The administration maintained its position that Halligan was lawfully appointed, press secretary Karoline Leavitt told the press on Monday.