🔗 Share this article

Two high-profile critics of President Trump achieved significant court wins on the start of the week when a US judge dismissed the federal indictments against them.

Over recent weeks following their charges, ex-FBI chief James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have argued vehemently that they are not guilty, asserting that the president and justice department are merely singling out them for retaliation.

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

• Court throws out charges against ex-FBI director Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states DOJ errors may have compromised the Comey trial
• What is ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

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

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

But the government faces significant hurdles to effectively try either after this defeat, and legal analysts are reluctant to forecast what could occur next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

In my view, it's uncharted territory, said Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Could the justice department appeal?

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

Attorney General Pam Bondi signaled she would pursue this option, pledging to use all legal means, including an expedited appeal.

In other cases, the former administration has strongly challenged unfavourable rulings, taking cases from lower courts and sometimes fast-tracking its requests up to the US Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, vowed to continue to challenge any further politically driven indictments through all legal avenues.

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

Could there be new charges?

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

Each pleaded not guilty. Besides arguing Halligan's appointment was invalid, both also claimed 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 new grand juries and secure new charges.

Based on my analysis, a different attorney could bring James' case to a new grand jury and secure a new indictment, said Professor Levine.

But John Day, head of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complex process – certainly in the Comey matter.

It's clear that it will be strongly disputed, whether Mr Comey's case can be re-indicted if a properly assigned attorney is appointed and is can obtain an charge.

He characterized the tangle of lawyers, judges, and legal filings involved as a procedural morass with no easy solutions.

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

A key issue is the legal time limit – the time frame that government lawyers had to charge him for these particular claims – which ended at the end of September. Nonetheless, the dismissal of the charges would activate a half-year extension for the justice department to bring the case again.

Still in that case, his legal team said it intends to contend the government is past the deadline.

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

What is the fate of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the indictments against James and Comey, Judge Currie was blunt: Halligan's appointment was improper.

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

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

US attorneys are proposed by the US president and require US Senate confirmation. Federal statutes regulate how individuals can be appointed on a interim basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's appointment had violated these laws.

This makes Halligan's role on subsequent cases against James and Comey, again, unclear.

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

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

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