🔗 Share this article

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

For weeks since their indictments, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have insisted vehemently that they are innocent, claiming that the administration and DOJ are simply targeting them for revenge.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie tossed the charges against them due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's invalid assignment as federal prosecutor. But she also left the door open for the government to try again.

• Judge dismisses charges against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states DOJ errors may have compromised Comey case
• What is ex-FBI director James Comey accused of?

Comey acknowledged that likelihood after the ruling, saying he believes the former president will probably come after him again.

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This will not be the final word on this matter.

But the government confronts significant obstacles to successfully prosecute 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 unexplored legal ground, said Professor Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Could the DOJ challenge the ruling?

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

Attorney General Pam Bondi indicated she would pursue this option, pledging to use all legal means, including an expedited appeal.

Previously, the former administration has strongly challenged adverse decisions, taking cases from lower courts and sometimes accelerating its requests up to the Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, vowed to continue to challenge any further politically motivated charges through all legal avenues.

In the event of an appeals process, the DOJ probably 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 government accused Comey with making false statements to Congress and obstruction of justice. Federal prosecutors charged James with bank fraud and providing false information to a financial institution.

Both pleaded not guilty. Besides arguing Halligan's appointment was invalid, both also asserted 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 secure new indictments.

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

But legal expert John Day, president of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complicated path – especially in the Comey matter.

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 characterized the complex web of lawyers, judges, and motions involved as a procedural morass with no easy solutions.

It might be harder 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 specific allegations – which expired at the end of September. Nonetheless, the indictment's dismissal would trigger a half-year extension for the DOJ to refile the case.

Still in that situation, his lawyers said it plans to contend the prosecution is out of time.

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

What happens to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the indictments against James and Comey, the judge was direct: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

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

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

US attorneys are proposed by the US president and need Senate approval. Federal statutes regulate how people can be assigned 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, once more, uncertain.

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

But Attorney General Bondi said on that day that she designated her a special federal prosecutor and commended her work as excellent.

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