🔗 Share this article

Two high-profile critics of former President Trump achieved major legal victories on Monday when a US judge dismissed the government's charges against them.

Over recent weeks since their indictments, ex-FBI chief James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have insisted fiercely that they are not guilty, claiming that the administration and DOJ are simply singling out them for retaliation.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges against them due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's improper assignment as federal prosecutor. However, she left open the possibility for the federal authorities to try again.

• Judge dismisses charges against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have tainted the Comey trial
• What is former FBI head James Comey charged with?

Comey acknowledged that possibility after the decision, stating he believes the former president is likely to target him once more.

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This will not be the last chapter on this matter.

But the DOJ confronts steep hurdles to successfully prosecute both after this defeat, and legal analysts hesitate to predict what could occur next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

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

Might the justice department appeal?

The DOJ can contest Judge Currie's ruling before a federal appeals court. In this instance, that would be the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

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

Previously, the former administration has aggressively appealed adverse decisions, taking cases from lower courts and sometimes fast-tracking its petitions up to the US Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, pledged to keep fighting any further politically driven indictments through every lawful means available.

In the event of an appeals process, the justice department probably would have its own lawyers argue the case, making Halligan's role in the appeals process unclear.

Is it possible there be new charges?

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

Both pleaded not guilty. Besides arguing Halligan's appointment was invalid, they 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 convene fresh grand juries and obtain new indictments.

Based on my analysis, a different attorney could present James's case to a different 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 complex process – especially 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 assigned and is able to secure an indictment.

He described the tangle of attorneys, judges, and legal filings involved as a legal quagmire with no easy solutions.

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

A key issue is the legal time limit – the deadline that government lawyers had to charge Comey for these particular claims – which ended at the close of September. However, the indictment's dismissal would trigger a half-year extension for the DOJ to refile the case.

Still in that case, his lawyers 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 is the fate of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

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

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

As a result, she lacked legal power to file the charges, she wrote.

Federal prosecutors are nominated by the US president and require US Senate confirmation. US laws govern how people can be assigned on a temporary basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's appointment had breached these regulations.

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

The ruling also could cast a shadow on any other cases Halligan has prosecuted in the Eastern District of Virginia where she works.

But Bondi said on Monday that she made Halligan a special US attorney and praised her work as outstanding.

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