🔗 Share this article

Two well-known critics of President Trump secured major legal victories on the start of the week when a US judge dismissed the government's charges against them.

For weeks following their charges, ex-FBI chief James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have maintained vehemently that they are innocent, asserting that the president and justice department are merely targeting them for retaliation.

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

• Court throws out cases against ex-FBI director Comey and NY attorney general James
• US judge says government 'missteps' may have compromised Comey case
• What is former FBI head James Comey accused of?

Comey admitted that possibility after the ruling, stating he believes the former president will probably come after him once more.

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This will not be the last chapter on this issue.

But the government confronts steep obstacles to effectively try both after this defeat, and experts are reluctant to predict what could happen next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

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

Could the justice department appeal?

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

Attorney General Pam Bondi indicated she would take this route, vowing to use all available legal action, including an expedited appeal.

In other cases, the former administration has aggressively appealed adverse decisions, moving cases from lower courts and sometimes fast-tracking its requests up to the 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 appeal, the justice department likely would have its own attorneys argue the case, making Halligan's role in the appeals process uncertain.

Is it possible there be fresh indictments?

The federal prosecutors accused James Comey with making false statements to Congress and obstruction of justice. Government lawyers charged James with financial fraud and providing false information to a financial institution.

Both pleaded not guilty. Besides claiming Halligan was unlawfully appointed, they also claimed to be targets of vindictive prosecution.

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

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

But legal expert 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 recharged if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is appointed and is able to secure an charge.

He described the complex web of lawyers, courts, and legal filings involved as a procedural morass with no easy solutions.

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

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the deadline that government lawyers had to indict him for these specific allegations – which expired at the close of September. However, the indictment's dismissal would trigger a six-month grace period for the DOJ to refile the case.

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

The decision further indicates that because the charge 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 both decisions on the indictments against Comey and James, the judge was blunt: Halligan's appointment was improper.

The judge stated in the James decision that the AG's effort to install Ms. Halligan as Interim US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was invalid.

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

US attorneys are proposed by the president and require Senate approval. Federal statutes regulate how individuals can be appointed on a interim basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's assignment had violated these laws.

This makes Halligan's role on subsequent cases against both individuals, once more, uncertain.

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

But Bondi said on Monday that she made Halligan a special federal prosecutor and praised her work as excellent.

The White House stood by its stance that Halligan's appointment was legal, press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.