🔗 Share this article

A pair of well-known critics of President Trump secured significant legal victories on Monday when a US judge threw out the government's charges filed against them.

For weeks since their indictments, ex-FBI chief James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have argued fiercely that they are innocent, asserting that the president and justice department are simply singling out them for retaliation.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the indictments in their cases due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's improper appointment as US attorney. However, she left the door open for the government to refile the case.

• Court throws out cases against ex-FBI director Comey and New York AG James
• US judge says government 'missteps' may have compromised the Comey trial
• What is ex-FBI director James Comey accused of?

Comey admitted that likelihood after the decision, saying he believes the former president will probably come after him again.

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

But the government confronts steep obstacles to effectively try both after this setback, and experts hesitate to forecast what could occur next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

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

Might the justice department appeal?

The Department of Justice can contest 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, vowing to use all legal means, including an expedited appeal.

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

Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, 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 involvement in the appeal uncertain.

Could there be fresh indictments?

The federal prosecutors charged James Comey with making false statements to Congress and obstructing justice. Federal prosecutors charged Letitia James with financial fraud and providing false information to a bank.

Both entered not guilty pleas. In addition to arguing Halligan's appointment was invalid, they also asserted to be victims of vindictive prosecution.

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

Based on my analysis, a new prosecutor could bring James' case to a new grand jury and get a new indictment, stated Professor Levine.

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

It's clear that it will be hotly contested, whether Mr Comey's case can be recharged if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is assigned and is able to secure an indictment.

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

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

One problem is the statute of limitations – the time frame that government lawyers had to charge him for these specific allegations – which ended at the end of September. Nonetheless, the indictment's dismissal would trigger a half-year extension for the DOJ to bring the case again.

Still in that situation, his lawyers said it intends to contend the government 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 further indictment, lawyer 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 was wrongly appointed.

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

Therefore, she had no lawful authority to present the indictment, the judge wrote.

Federal prosecutors are proposed by the US president and require Senate approval. US laws govern how individuals can be assigned on a interim basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's assignment had breached these laws.

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

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

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

The administration stood by its stance that Halligan's appointment was legal, press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.