🔗 Share this article

A pair of prominent critics of President Trump secured significant legal victories on Monday when a federal judge dismissed the government's charges filed against them.

Over recent weeks following their charges, 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 merely targeting them for retaliation.

US District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges against them due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's improper appointment as US attorney. However, she left the door open for the federal authorities to refile the case.

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

Comey admitted that possibility after the decision, stating he thinks the former president will probably come after him once more.

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This isn't the last chapter on this matter.

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

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

Might the DOJ challenge the ruling?

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

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

In other cases, the Trump administration has aggressively appealed adverse decisions, taking cases from trial courts and sometimes accelerating its petitions up to the US Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, vowed to keep fighting any additional politically driven indictments through all legal avenues.

If there is an appeals process, the DOJ likely would have its own attorneys present the arguments, making Halligan's role in the appeal unclear.

Is it possible there be new charges?

The government accused Comey with making false statements to lawmakers and obstruction of justice. Federal prosecutors charged Letitia James with bank fraud and providing false information to a financial institution.

Each pleaded not guilty. In addition to arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also asserted to be targets of retaliatory legal action.

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

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

But 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 recharged 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 legal quagmire with no easy solutions.

It might be harder for the DOJ to try to file the identical accusations against James Comey.

A key issue is the legal time limit – the time frame that prosecutors had to indict him 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 bring the case again.

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

The ruling also suggests that because the indictment is invalid, the time limit has expired and there can be no further indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said on Monday.

What happens to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

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

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.

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

Federal prosecutors are nominated by the US president and need Senate approval. US laws govern how people can be appointed on a temporary basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's assignment had violated these regulations.

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

The decision might also cast a shadow on other cases Halligan has brought in the Eastern District of Virginia where she works.

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

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