🔗 Share this article

Two prominent critics of former President Trump obtained significant court wins on Monday when a federal judge threw out the government's charges against them.

Over recent weeks since their indictments, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have argued fiercely that they are innocent, claiming that the administration and DOJ are merely targeting them for retaliation.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges against them due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's improper assignment as federal prosecutor. However, she left the door open for the federal authorities to try again.

• Court throws out cases 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 possibility after the ruling, stating he thinks the former president is likely to target him once more.

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

But the DOJ faces steep obstacles to effectively try either 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 unexplored legal ground, said Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Might the DOJ appeal?

The Department of Justice 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, vowing to use all available legal action, including an immediate appeal.

Previously, the former administration has strongly challenged adverse decisions, moving cases from lower courts and sometimes accelerating its petitions up to the US Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, pledged to keep fighting any further politically motivated charges through every lawful means available.

If there is an appeals process, the justice department probably would have its own lawyers argue the case, making Halligan's involvement in the appeals process uncertain.

Is it possible there be fresh indictments?

The federal prosecutors charged James Comey with lying to Congress and obstructing justice. Federal prosecutors indicted Letitia James with financial fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

Each pleaded not guilty. In addition to arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, they also asserted to be victims of vindictive prosecution.

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

As far as everything I've seen, a different attorney could bring James' 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 complex process – certainly in the Comey matter.

I can tell you it will be hotly contested, whether Mr Comey's case can be re-indicted if a properly assigned attorney is assigned and is can obtain an indictment.

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

It could be harder for the DOJ to try to bring the exact same charges against James Comey.

A key issue is the legal time limit – the time frame that government lawyers had to charge Comey for these specific allegations – which ended at the close of September. However, the dismissal of the charges would trigger a six-month grace period for the DOJ to refile the case.

Still in that situation, his legal team said it plans to argue the prosecution is past the deadline.

The decision further indicates that since the charge is void, the time limit has run and there can be no further indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What happens to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

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

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

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

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

That leaves Halligan's role on future cases against both individuals, once more, uncertain.

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

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

The administration maintained its position that Halligan's appointment was legal, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told the press on Monday.