🔗 Share this article

A pair of prominent critics of former President Trump achieved significant court wins on Monday when a US judge threw out the government's charges against them.

Over recent weeks since their indictments, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have argued vehemently that they are not guilty, asserting that the administration and DOJ are simply targeting them for revenge.

US District Judge Cameron Currie tossed the charges against them due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's improper appointment as US attorney. But she also left the door open for the government to try again.

• Court throws out charges against ex-FBI director Comey and NY attorney general James
• US judge says DOJ errors may have tainted the Comey trial
• What is ex-FBI director James Comey accused of?

Comey admitted that likelihood after the decision, saying he thinks the former president is likely to target him again.

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

But the DOJ confronts significant hurdles to successfully prosecute either after this setback, and legal analysts hesitate to predict what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

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

Might the justice department appeal?

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

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

In other cases, the former administration has strongly challenged unfavourable rulings, moving cases from trial courts and sometimes fast-tracking its petitions up to the US Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, pledged to continue to challenge any further politically driven indictments through all legal avenues.

In the event of an appeals process, the DOJ likely would have its own lawyers argue the case, making Halligan's involvement in the appeal unclear.

Is it possible there be fresh indictments?

The federal prosecutors accused Comey with lying to Congress and obstructing justice. Federal prosecutors charged 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, they also asserted to be victims of vindictive prosecution.

Since the initial charges were dismissed (though, of course, appeals could change that), the government might try to convene new grand juries and obtain new charges.

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

But legal expert John Day, head 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 appointed and is able to secure an charge.

He characterized the complex web of lawyers, courts, and legal filings involved as a legal quagmire with no easy solutions.

It could be more difficult for the DOJ to try to file the identical accusations against Comey.

A key issue is the legal time limit – the deadline that prosecutors had to indict Comey for these particular claims – which ended at the close of September. However, the indictment's dismissal would activate a six-month grace period for the DOJ to bring the case again.

Still in that case, his legal team said it intends to contend the prosecution is out of time.

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

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the indictments against James and Comey, the judge was direct: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

Judge Currie wrote in the James ruling that the Attorney General's attempt to install Halligan as Interim US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was invalid.

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

US attorneys are nominated by the US president and need US Senate confirmation. US laws govern how individuals can be assigned on a interim basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's assignment had violated these regulations.

This makes Halligan's role on future cases against both individuals, again, unclear.

The ruling also could raise doubts on other cases Halligan has prosecuted in the Eastern District of Virginia where she serves.

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

The White House stood by its stance that Halligan was lawfully appointed, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told the press on Monday.