🔗 Share this article

A pair of prominent critics of President Trump achieved major court wins on the start of the week when a US judge threw out the government's charges filed against them.

For weeks following their charges, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have insisted fiercely that they are innocent, claiming that the administration and DOJ are merely singling out them for revenge.

US District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges against them due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's invalid assignment as US attorney. But she also left the door open for the federal authorities to refile the case.

• Court throws out charges against ex-FBI director Comey and New York AG James
• Federal judge states DOJ errors may have compromised Comey case
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

Comey acknowledged that possibility after the decision, saying he believes Trump is likely to come after him again.

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This isn't the final word on this matter.

But the government confronts steep hurdles to effectively try either 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, said Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Could the DOJ challenge the ruling?

The DOJ can contest 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 signaled she would take this route, vowing to use all legal means, including an expedited appeal.

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

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

If there is an appeals process, the DOJ likely would have its own lawyers present the arguments, making Halligan's role in the appeals process unclear.

Is it possible there be new charges?

The federal prosecutors charged James Comey with making false statements to lawmakers and obstruction of justice. Government lawyers charged James with financial fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

Both pleaded not guilty. In addition to claiming Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also claimed to be victims of vindictive prosecution.

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

Based on my analysis, a new prosecutor could present James's case to a different grand jury and get a new indictment, stated Ms Levine.

But legal expert John Day, head of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complex process – especially in Comey's case.

I can tell you it will be strongly disputed, whether Comey's case can be re-indicted if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is assigned and is able to secure an indictment.

He described the tangle of lawyers, courts, and legal filings involved as a legal quagmire with no easy solutions.

It might be more difficult for the DOJ to try to file the identical accusations against Comey.

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the deadline that government lawyers had to indict him for these particular claims – which expired at the end of September. Nonetheless, the dismissal of the charges would activate a six-month grace period for the justice department to refile the case.

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

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

What is the fate of Lindsey Halligan?

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

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

Therefore, Halligan lacked legal power to file the charges, the judge wrote.

US attorneys are proposed by the president and need US Senate confirmation. Federal statutes govern how individuals can be appointed on a temporary basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's appointment had violated these regulations.

This makes Halligan's role on future cases against both individuals, again, unclear.

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

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

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