🔗 Share this article

Two prominent critics of President Trump obtained significant legal victories on the start of the week when a federal judge threw out the government's charges against them.

For weeks since their indictments, ex-FBI chief James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have insisted vehemently that they are not guilty, claiming that the president and justice department are merely singling out them for retaliation.

US District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges in their cases due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's improper assignment as US attorney. However, she left the door open for the federal authorities to try again.

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

Comey admitted that likelihood after the ruling, saying he thinks 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 last chapter on this matter.

But the DOJ faces significant hurdles to effectively try both after this setback, and legal analysts are reluctant to forecast what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

In my view, it's uncharted territory, said Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Might the justice department challenge the ruling?

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

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

In other cases, the Trump administration has aggressively appealed unfavourable rulings, taking cases from lower courts and sometimes fast-tracking its requests up to the US Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, 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 appeals process uncertain.

Could there be fresh indictments?

The federal prosecutors charged Comey with lying to lawmakers and obstruction of justice. Federal prosecutors charged Letitia James with financial fraud and making false statements to a bank.

Both entered not guilty pleas. In addition to arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also claimed to be targets of retaliatory legal action.

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

Based on my analysis, a different attorney could present James's case to a new grand jury and get a new indictment, said Professor Levine.

But John Day, head of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complicated path – especially in Comey's case.

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

He characterized the complex web of attorneys, judges, and motions involved as a procedural morass with no simple answers.

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

One problem is the statute of limitations – the deadline that prosecutors had to charge Comey for these specific allegations – which expired at the end of September. Nonetheless, the dismissal of the charges would activate a half-year extension for the justice department to refile the case.

Even so in that case, his legal team said it plans to contend the prosecution is past the deadline.

The decision further indicates that since the indictment is invalid, the statute of limitations has run and there can be no new indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings on the charges against Comey and James, the judge was direct: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

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

As a result, she lacked legal power to present the indictment, she wrote.

US attorneys are proposed by the US president and require US Senate confirmation. Federal statutes regulate how individuals can be assigned on a interim basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's appointment had breached these regulations.

This makes Halligan's role on future cases against James and Comey, again, uncertain.

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

But Attorney General Bondi said on that day that she made Halligan a special federal prosecutor and commended her work as outstanding.

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