🔗 Share this article

Two high-profile critics of former President Trump achieved significant legal victories on the start of the week when a US judge threw out the federal indictments filed against them.

Over recent weeks since their indictments, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have maintained vehemently that they are not guilty, asserting that the administration and DOJ are merely targeting them for revenge.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the indictments in their cases due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's invalid appointment as US attorney. But she also left open the possibility 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 compromised Comey case
• What is former FBI head James Comey charged with?

Comey acknowledged that possibility after the decision, saying he thinks Trump will probably target him again.

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This will not be the last chapter on this issue.

But the DOJ confronts significant obstacles to successfully prosecute either after this defeat, and legal analysts are reluctant to predict what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

In my view, it's unexplored legal ground, said Professor Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Could the DOJ appeal?

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

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

In other cases, the Trump administration has aggressively appealed unfavourable rulings, taking cases from trial courts and sometimes accelerating its requests up to the Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, pledged to continue to challenge any additional politically motivated charges through every lawful means available.

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

Could there be new charges?

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

Each entered not guilty pleas. Besides claiming Halligan was unlawfully appointed, they also asserted to be targets of vindictive prosecution.

Since the initial charges were dismissed (although appeals might alter this), the DOJ might try to convene new grand juries and obtain new charges.

As far as everything I've seen, a new prosecutor could present James's case to a new grand jury and get a fresh indictment, stated Ms Levine.

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

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

He characterized the tangle of lawyers, judges, and legal filings involved as a legal quagmire with no simple answers.

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

One problem is the statute of limitations – the deadline that prosecutors had to indict Comey for these particular claims – which ended at the close of September. Nonetheless, the dismissal of the charges would activate a half-year extension for the justice department to refile the case.

Even so in that situation, his legal team said it plans to contend the government is out of time.

The decision further indicates that since the charge is invalid, the time limit has expired and there can be no further indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said on Monday.

What happens to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the charges against James and Comey, the judge was direct: Halligan's appointment was improper.

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

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

US attorneys are proposed by the US president and need Senate approval. US laws regulate how people can be appointed on a temporary basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's assignment had breached these regulations.

This makes Halligan's position on future cases against James and Comey, once more, uncertain.

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

But Attorney General Bondi said on Monday that she made Halligan a special US attorney and commended her work as excellent.

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