🔗 Share this article

A pair of prominent critics of President Trump obtained significant legal victories on the start of the week when a US judge threw out the government's charges against them.

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

Federal Judge Cameron Currie tossed the charges in their cases due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's invalid appointment as federal prosecutor. But she also left open the possibility for the federal authorities to refile the case.

• Court throws out charges against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states DOJ errors may have compromised the Comey trial
• What is former FBI head James Comey charged with?

Comey admitted that possibility after the decision, 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 government faces steep obstacles to effectively try both after this setback, and experts are reluctant to predict what could occur next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

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

Could the DOJ challenge the ruling?

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

Attorney General Pam Bondi indicated she would take this route, pledging to use all legal means, including an immediate appeal.

Previously, the former administration has strongly challenged adverse decisions, taking cases from lower courts and sometimes fast-tracking its requests up to the Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, vowed to keep fighting any further politically driven indictments through all legal avenues.

If there is an appeal, the DOJ probably would have its own attorneys present the arguments, making Halligan's involvement in the appeal uncertain.

Is it possible there be new charges?

The government charged Comey with lying to lawmakers and obstructing justice. Government lawyers charged Letitia James with financial fraud and making false statements to a bank.

Both pleaded not guilty. Besides arguing Halligan's appointment was invalid, they also asserted to be victims of vindictive prosecution.

With the original indictments thrown out (though, of course, appeals could change that), the government might try to convene 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 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 complicated path – especially in the Comey matter.

It's clear that it will be hotly contested, whether Mr Comey's case can be re-indicted if a properly assigned attorney is assigned 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 harder for the DOJ to try to bring 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 particular claims – which expired at the end of September. However, the dismissal of the charges would trigger a half-year extension for the DOJ to refile the case.

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

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

What is the fate of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings on the charges against Comey and James, the judge was blunt: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

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

As a result, Halligan had no lawful authority to file the charges, she wrote.

Federal prosecutors are proposed by the president and require US Senate confirmation. US laws regulate how people can be assigned on a interim basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's assignment had breached these regulations.

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

The decision might also raise doubts on any other cases Halligan has brought in the Virginia Eastern District where she serves.

But Bondi said on Monday that she designated her a special US attorney and commended her work as outstanding.

The administration maintained its position that Halligan was lawfully appointed, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.