🔗 Share this article

A pair of high-profile critics of President Trump obtained major legal victories on Monday when a federal judge threw out the government's charges filed against them.

For weeks since their indictments, ex-FBI chief James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have argued fiercely that they are innocent, asserting that the president and justice department are simply targeting them for revenge.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie tossed the indictments in their cases due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's improper appointment as US attorney. However, she left open the possibility for the government to try again.

• Judge dismisses cases against ex-FBI director Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states DOJ errors may have compromised the Comey trial
• What are former FBI head James Comey accused of?

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

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This will not be the last chapter on this issue.

But the government faces steep obstacles to effectively try either after this defeat, and experts hesitate to forecast what could happen next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

It feels to me like unexplored legal ground, stated Professor Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Could the DOJ appeal?

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

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

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

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

If there is an appeal, the justice department probably would have its own attorneys present the arguments, making Halligan's role in the appeals process uncertain.

Could there be fresh indictments?

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

Both entered not guilty pleas. Besides arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also asserted to be targets of vindictive prosecution.

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

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

But legal expert John Day, president 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 Comey's case can be recharged if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is appointed and is can obtain an charge.

He characterized the tangle of attorneys, courts, and motions involved as a legal quagmire with no easy solutions.

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

A key issue is the legal time limit – the deadline that prosecutors had to charge Comey for these specific allegations – 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 bring the case again.

Even so in that case, his legal team said it intends to argue the government is past the deadline.

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

What is the fate of Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings 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 Attorney General's attempt to install Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was unlawful.

As a result, Halligan had no lawful authority to file the charges, the judge wrote.

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

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

The decision might also raise doubts on other cases Halligan has prosecuted in the Virginia Eastern District where she serves.

But Bondi said on Monday that she made her a special federal prosecutor and commended her work as outstanding.

The administration maintained its position that Halligan was lawfully appointed, press secretary Karoline Leavitt told the press on Monday.