🔗 Share this article

A pair of prominent critics of President Trump achieved major court wins on the start of the week when a federal judge dismissed the government's charges filed against them.

For weeks since their indictments, ex-FBI chief James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have argued fiercely that they are not guilty, asserting that the president and justice department are merely singling out them for revenge.

US District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges against them due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's improper appointment as US attorney. But she also left the door open for the government to try again.

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

Comey admitted that possibility after the ruling, 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 final word on this issue.

But the government confronts steep hurdles to effectively try both after this setback, and experts are reluctant to forecast what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

It feels to me like uncharted territory, stated Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Could 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 Appeals Court.

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

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

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

If there is an appeal, the justice department likely would have its own lawyers present the arguments, making Halligan's role in the appeal uncertain.

Could there be new charges?

The federal prosecutors accused James Comey with making false statements to Congress and obstruction of justice. Federal prosecutors charged James with financial fraud and making false statements to a bank.

Both pleaded not guilty. In addition to arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also claimed to be targets of vindictive prosecution.

With the original indictments thrown out (although appeals might alter this), the government might try to assemble fresh grand juries and obtain new indictments.

As far as everything I've seen, a new prosecutor could bring James' case to a new grand jury and get a fresh indictment, said Professor Levine.

But legal expert John Day, head 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 re-indicted if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is assigned and is able to secure an indictment.

He described the tangle of lawyers, courts, and motions involved as a procedural morass with no easy solutions.

It could be harder for the government to try to bring the exact same charges against Comey.

A key issue is the legal time limit – the time frame that prosecutors had to charge him for these specific allegations – which ended at the end of September. However, the indictment's dismissal would activate a six-month grace period for the DOJ to refile the case.

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

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

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions 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 appoint Ms. Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was unlawful.

Therefore, she had no lawful authority to file the charges, the judge wrote.

US attorneys are proposed by the US president and need US Senate confirmation. US laws regulate how people can be assigned on a interim basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's appointment had breached these regulations.

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

The decision might also cast a shadow on 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 commended her work as excellent.

The administration stood by its stance that Halligan was lawfully appointed, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told the press on Monday.