🔗 Share this article

A pair of well-known critics of former President Trump secured major court wins on Monday when a federal judge dismissed the government's charges filed against them.

Over recent weeks since their indictments, ex-FBI chief James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have argued fiercely that they are not guilty, claiming that the president and justice department are simply singling out them for revenge.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges against them due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's invalid assignment as federal prosecutor. But she also left the door open for the government to try again.

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

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

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This isn't the final word on this matter.

But the DOJ confronts steep hurdles to effectively try either after this defeat, and experts hesitate to predict what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

It feels to me like unexplored legal ground, said Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Might the DOJ challenge the ruling?

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

US Attorney General Pam Bondi indicated she would take this route, pledging to use all available legal action, including an expedited appeal.

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

Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, pledged to continue to challenge any further politically motivated charges through all legal avenues.

If there is an appeals process, the DOJ probably would have its own attorneys argue the case, making Halligan's role in the appeals process unclear.

Is it possible there be new charges?

The government charged Comey with lying to Congress and obstruction of justice. Federal prosecutors charged Letitia James with bank fraud and providing false information to a bank.

Each pleaded not guilty. Besides arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also asserted to be targets of vindictive prosecution.

With the original indictments thrown out (though, of course, appeals could change that), the government might try to assemble new grand juries and obtain new indictments.

Based on my analysis, a new prosecutor could bring James' case to a different 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 – especially in Comey's case.

I can tell you it will be strongly disputed, whether Comey's case can be re-indicted if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is appointed and is can obtain an charge.

He described the complex web of attorneys, judges, and legal filings involved as a legal quagmire with no simple answers.

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

One problem is the legal time limit – the deadline that government lawyers had to indict Comey for these specific allegations – which ended at the end of September. Nonetheless, the dismissal of the charges would trigger a half-year extension for the DOJ to bring the case again.

Even so in that situation, his lawyers said it intends to contend the government is past the deadline.

The ruling also suggests 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 the pair of rulings on the charges against James and Comey, the judge was blunt: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

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

Therefore, Halligan lacked legal power to file the charges, she wrote.

Federal prosecutors are proposed by the US 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 appointment had violated these laws.

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

The decision might also raise doubts on other cases Halligan has prosecuted in the Virginia Eastern District where she works.

But Attorney General Bondi said on that day that she designated her a special federal prosecutor and commended her work as outstanding.

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