🔗 Share this article

A pair of high-profile critics of President Trump achieved significant legal victories on Monday when a federal judge dismissed the federal indictments filed against them.

For weeks following their charges, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have maintained fiercely that they are not guilty, asserting that the president and justice department are simply targeting them for retaliation.

US District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges in their cases due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's invalid appointment as US attorney. But she also left open the possibility for the federal authorities to refile the case.

• Judge dismisses cases against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have tainted Comey case
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey accused of?

Comey acknowledged that possibility after the ruling, stating he believes Trump is likely to target him again.

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This will not be the final word on this matter.

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

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

Might the DOJ appeal?

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

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

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

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

In the event of an appeal, the DOJ likely would have its own lawyers present the arguments, making Halligan's role in the appeal uncertain.

Is it possible there be new charges?

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

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

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

As far as everything I've seen, a different attorney could present James's case to a new grand jury and get a fresh 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 Comey's case can be recharged if a properly assigned attorney is appointed and is able to secure an charge.

He described the complex web of lawyers, judges, and legal filings involved as a procedural morass with no simple answers.

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

A key issue is the legal time limit – the deadline that government lawyers had to charge Comey for these particular claims – which expired at the close of September. However, the dismissal of the charges would activate a six-month grace period for the justice department to refile the case.

Still in that case, his legal team said it plans to contend the government is out of time.

The decision further indicates that because the charge is invalid, the statute of limitations has expired and there can be no new indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said on Monday.

What is the fate of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

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

Judge Currie wrote in the James decision that the AG's effort to install Ms. Halligan as Interim US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was unlawful.

Therefore, Halligan had no lawful authority to present the indictment, she wrote.

Federal prosecutors are nominated by the president and need US Senate confirmation. US laws regulate how individuals can be assigned on a interim basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's appointment had violated these laws.

That leaves Halligan's position on future cases against both individuals, again, uncertain.

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

But Attorney General Bondi said on that day that she designated Halligan a special US attorney and praised her work as excellent.

The administration maintained its position that Halligan's appointment was legal, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told the press on Monday.