🔗 Share this article

Two well-known critics of former President Trump achieved major legal victories on the start of the week when a US judge dismissed the federal indictments against them.

For weeks following their charges, former FBI Director James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have insisted fiercely that they are innocent, asserting that the administration and DOJ are simply targeting them for retaliation.

US District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges against them due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's improper assignment as US attorney. However, she left open the possibility for the government to refile the case.

• Judge dismisses charges against former FBI chief Comey and New York AG James
• Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have compromised the Comey trial
• What are former FBI head James Comey charged with?

Comey acknowledged that likelihood after the ruling, saying he believes Trump is likely to target him again.

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

But the DOJ confronts steep hurdles to effectively try either after this setback, and experts are reluctant to predict what could occur next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

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

Could the DOJ appeal?

The DOJ 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 take this route, pledging to use all available legal action, including an expedited appeal.

In other cases, the Trump administration has aggressively appealed unfavourable rulings, moving cases from trial courts and sometimes fast-tracking its requests 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 justice department likely would have its own lawyers argue the case, making Halligan's role in the appeal uncertain.

Is it possible there be new charges?

The government accused James Comey with lying to Congress and obstruction of justice. Government lawyers charged Letitia James with financial fraud and providing false information to a financial institution.

Each pleaded not guilty. Besides claiming Halligan's appointment was invalid, both 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 convene new grand juries and secure new charges.

As far as everything I've seen, 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, president 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 recharged if a properly assigned attorney is appointed and is able to secure an indictment.

He described the tangle of attorneys, courts, and legal filings involved as a procedural morass with no simple answers.

It might be more difficult for the government to try to file the exact same charges against James Comey.

One problem is the legal time limit – the deadline that prosecutors had to charge him for these specific allegations – which expired at the close of September. However, the indictment's dismissal would trigger a half-year extension for the DOJ to bring the case again.

Even so in that case, his lawyers said it plans to argue the government is past the deadline.

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

What happens to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings on the indictments against Comey and James, the judge was blunt: Halligan's appointment was improper.

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

Therefore, Halligan lacked legal power to present the indictment, she wrote.

Federal prosecutors are nominated by the US president and need US Senate confirmation. Federal statutes regulate how people can be appointed on a interim basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's appointment had violated these laws.

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

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

But Attorney General Bondi said on Monday that she made Halligan a special US attorney and commended her work as excellent.

The administration stood by its stance that Halligan's appointment was legal, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.