🔗 Share this article

A pair of high-profile critics of President Trump secured significant legal victories on Monday when a federal judge dismissed the government's charges filed against them.

Over recent weeks following their charges, former FBI Director James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have insisted fiercely that they are innocent, claiming that the president and justice department are merely targeting them for retaliation.

US District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges in their cases due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's invalid assignment as US attorney. However, she left open the possibility for the federal authorities to refile the case.

• Judge dismisses charges against ex-FBI director Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have tainted the Comey trial
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

Comey admitted that likelihood after the ruling, saying he thinks Trump will probably target him once more.

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

But the government faces steep hurdles to effectively try both after this setback, and experts are reluctant to forecast what could happen next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

It feels to me like uncharted territory, stated Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Might the DOJ challenge the ruling?

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

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

In other cases, the former administration has aggressively appealed unfavourable rulings, moving cases from trial 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.

In the event of an appeal, the justice department likely would have its own attorneys argue the case, making Halligan's role in the appeals process uncertain.

Could there be fresh indictments?

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

Both pleaded not guilty. In addition to arguing Halligan's appointment was invalid, both also asserted to be targets of retaliatory legal action.

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

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

But legal expert John Day, president of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complicated path – certainly in the Comey matter.

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

He characterized the tangle of lawyers, judges, 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 government lawyers had to charge him for these specific allegations – which ended at the close of September. However, the indictment's dismissal would activate a six-month grace period for the justice department to bring the case again.

Still in that situation, his legal team said it intends to contend the government is past the deadline.

The ruling also suggests that since the charge is invalid, the time limit has run and there can be no new indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What happens to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the indictments against Comey and James, the judge was direct: Halligan's appointment was improper.

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

Therefore, she had no lawful authority to file the charges, the judge wrote.

Federal prosecutors are proposed by the US president and require Senate approval. Federal statutes regulate how individuals can be appointed on a interim basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's appointment had violated these regulations.

That leaves Halligan's position on subsequent cases against both individuals, again, uncertain.

The ruling also could 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 praised her work as outstanding.

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