🔗 Share this article

Two high-profile critics of President Trump achieved major legal victories on the start of the week when a US judge dismissed the government's charges against them.

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

US District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges in their cases due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's improper assignment as US attorney. However, she left the door open for the federal authorities to refile the case.

• Judge dismisses charges against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• US judge says government 'missteps' may have tainted Comey case
• What is former FBI head James Comey accused of?

Comey admitted that possibility after the ruling, 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 faces steep obstacles to successfully prosecute both after this setback, and experts hesitate to predict what could happen next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

In my view, it's uncharted territory, said Professor Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Might the justice department appeal?

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.

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

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

Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, pledged to keep fighting any additional politically motivated charges through all legal avenues.

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

Is it possible there be new charges?

The federal prosecutors accused Comey with making false statements to lawmakers and obstructing justice. Government lawyers indicted James with bank fraud and making false statements to a bank.

Both entered not guilty pleas. In addition to arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, they also claimed to be targets of vindictive prosecution.

Since the initial charges were dismissed (though, of course, appeals could change that), the DOJ might try to convene fresh grand juries and obtain new indictments.

Based on my analysis, a different attorney could bring James' case to a different grand jury and secure a new indictment, said Professor Levine.

But legal expert John Day, head 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 hotly contested, whether Comey's case can be recharged if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is appointed and is able to secure an charge.

He characterized the tangle of lawyers, judges, and legal filings involved as a legal quagmire with no simple answers.

It might be more difficult for the DOJ to try to file the exact same charges against James Comey.

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the deadline that prosecutors had to charge him for these particular claims – which expired at the end of September. Nonetheless, the indictment's dismissal would activate a half-year extension for the DOJ to refile the case.

Still in that situation, his lawyers said it plans to argue the prosecution is past the deadline.

The ruling also suggests that since the charge is void, the time limit has run and there can be no further indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said on Monday.

What happens to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

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

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

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

US attorneys are proposed by the president and require Senate approval. US laws govern how people can be appointed on a interim basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's appointment had breached these regulations.

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

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

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

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