🔗 Share this article

A pair of well-known critics of President Trump achieved significant court wins on the start of the week when a US judge threw out the government's charges filed against them.

For weeks since their indictments, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have maintained vehemently that they are not guilty, asserting that the president and justice department are simply singling out them for revenge.

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

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

Comey admitted that likelihood after the decision, saying he thinks Trump is likely to target him once more.

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This isn't the final word on this issue.

But the government confronts steep hurdles to effectively try both after this setback, and legal analysts are reluctant to predict what could occur next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

In my view, it's uncharted territory, said Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Might the DOJ appeal?

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

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

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

Attorney Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, vowed to keep fighting any further politically motivated charges through every lawful means available.

If there is an appeal, the DOJ probably would have its own attorneys argue the case, making Halligan's role in the appeal unclear.

Could there be fresh indictments?

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

Both entered not guilty pleas. In addition to arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also asserted to be victims of vindictive prosecution.

With the original indictments thrown out (although appeals might alter this), the DOJ might try to assemble fresh grand juries and secure new charges.

As far as everything I've seen, a different attorney could bring James' case to a new grand jury and secure a new indictment, stated Professor Levine.

But John Day, head of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complex process – certainly in Comey's case.

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

He characterized the tangle of lawyers, courts, and legal filings involved as a procedural morass with no easy solutions.

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

A key issue is the legal time limit – the deadline that government lawyers had to indict him for these particular claims – which expired at the close of September. Nonetheless, the indictment's dismissal would trigger a six-month grace period for the justice department to bring the case again.

Even so in that situation, his lawyers said it intends to contend the prosecution is out of time.

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

What is the fate of Lindsey Halligan?

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

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

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

Federal prosecutors are proposed 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 assignment had breached these regulations.

That leaves Halligan's position on subsequent cases against James and Comey, again, unclear.

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

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

The White House maintained its position that Halligan was lawfully appointed, press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.