🔗 Share this article

A pair of high-profile critics of former President Trump secured significant court wins on Monday when a federal judge threw out the government's charges filed against them.

Over recent weeks following their charges, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have insisted vehemently that they are not guilty, asserting that the administration and DOJ are simply singling out them for revenge.

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

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

Comey acknowledged that likelihood after the ruling, stating he thinks Trump will probably target him again.

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This isn't the final word on this issue.

But the DOJ faces steep hurdles to successfully prosecute both after this setback, and experts are reluctant to forecast what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

In my view, it's unexplored legal ground, stated Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Could the justice department appeal?

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

US Attorney General Pam Bondi signaled she would pursue this option, vowing to use all available legal action, including an expedited appeal.

In other cases, the Trump administration has aggressively appealed adverse decisions, moving cases from trial courts and sometimes accelerating 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 appeals process, the justice department likely would have its own lawyers present the arguments, making Halligan's involvement in the appeals process uncertain.

Is it possible there be new charges?

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

Both entered not guilty pleas. Besides claiming Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also claimed to be targets of retaliatory legal action.

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

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

But 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 strongly disputed, whether Mr Comey's case can be re-indicted if a properly assigned attorney is assigned and is able to secure an charge.

He described 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 file the identical accusations against Comey.

A key issue is the legal time limit – the deadline that government lawyers had to indict Comey for these specific allegations – which expired at the close of September. Nonetheless, the indictment's dismissal would trigger a half-year extension for the justice department to refile the case.

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

The ruling also suggests that since the charge is invalid, the statute of limitations has run and there can be no further indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What is the fate of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings on the charges against Comey and James, the judge was blunt: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

Judge Currie wrote in the James ruling that the Attorney General's attempt to install Halligan as Interim US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was unlawful.

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

Federal prosecutors are proposed by the US president and need US Senate confirmation. Federal statutes govern 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 position on future cases against both individuals, once more, unclear.

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

But Bondi said on Monday that she designated 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.