🔗 Share this article

A pair of high-profile critics of President Trump achieved significant court wins on the start of the week when a US judge dismissed the government's charges against them.

For weeks following their charges, 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 merely singling out them for revenge.

US District Judge Cameron Currie tossed the charges in their cases due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's improper assignment as US attorney. However, she left the door open for the federal authorities to try again.

• Court throws out cases against ex-FBI director Comey and New York AG James
• US judge says DOJ errors may have tainted Comey case
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey accused of?

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

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

But the government faces steep hurdles to successfully prosecute both after this setback, and legal analysts hesitate to forecast what could happen next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

It feels to me like unexplored legal ground, said Professor Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Might the DOJ appeal?

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

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 former administration has aggressively appealed unfavourable rulings, moving cases from trial courts and sometimes accelerating its requests up to the Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, pledged to keep fighting any further politically driven indictments through every lawful means available.

If there is an appeal, the DOJ likely would have its own lawyers argue the case, making Halligan's role in the appeals process uncertain.

Could there be fresh indictments?

The federal prosecutors accused Comey with lying to lawmakers and obstructing justice. Government lawyers charged James with bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

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

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

Based on my analysis, a different attorney could bring James' case to a different grand jury and secure a fresh indictment, stated Ms Levine.

But legal expert John Day, head of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complicated path – especially in Comey's case.

It's clear that it will be strongly disputed, whether Mr Comey's case can be recharged if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is assigned and is can obtain an indictment.

He characterized the complex web of lawyers, courts, and motions involved as a procedural morass with no simple answers.

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

One problem is the legal time limit – the time frame that prosecutors had to indict him for these specific allegations – which ended at the end of September. However, the indictment's dismissal would activate a half-year extension for the justice department to refile the case.

Still in that situation, his lawyers said it plans to argue the government is past the deadline.

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

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

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

The judge stated in the James decision that the Attorney General's attempt to appoint Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was unlawful.

As a result, she had no lawful authority to present the indictment, she wrote.

US attorneys are nominated by the president and require Senate approval. Federal statutes regulate how people can be assigned on a interim basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's appointment had violated these laws.

That leaves Halligan's position on future cases against both individuals, once more, unclear.

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

But Bondi said on that day that she made her a special US attorney and praised her work as excellent.

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