🔗 Share this article

A pair of prominent critics of President Trump achieved significant legal victories on the start of the week when a US judge dismissed 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 vehemently that they are not guilty, claiming that the administration and DOJ are merely targeting them for retaliation.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie tossed the indictments against them due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's improper appointment as federal prosecutor. But she also left the door open for the federal authorities to refile the case.

• Judge dismisses charges against ex-FBI director Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have tainted the Comey trial
• What are former FBI head James Comey accused of?

Comey admitted that likelihood after the decision, saying he believes the former president is likely to target him once more.

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

But the DOJ faces significant obstacles to effectively try either after this defeat, and legal analysts are reluctant to forecast what could occur next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

In my view, it's 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 pursue this option, pledging to use all legal means, including an immediate appeal.

In other cases, the Trump administration has strongly challenged adverse decisions, 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 continue to challenge any additional politically motivated charges through all legal avenues.

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

Is it possible there be fresh indictments?

The government accused James Comey with making false statements to Congress and obstructing justice. Federal prosecutors charged James with financial fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

Each entered not guilty pleas. In addition to arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also asserted to be victims of vindictive prosecution.

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

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

But legal expert John Day, president of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complex process – certainly in the Comey matter.

It's clear that it will be hotly contested, whether Comey's case can be re-indicted if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is appointed and is able to secure an charge.

He described the complex web of lawyers, courts, and motions 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 Comey.

A key issue is the legal time limit – the deadline that government lawyers had to charge Comey for these particular claims – which ended at the close of September. Nonetheless, the indictment's dismissal would trigger a half-year extension for the DOJ to refile the case.

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

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

What is the fate of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings on the indictments against James and Comey, Judge Currie was blunt: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

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

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

US attorneys are proposed by the president and require Senate approval. Federal statutes regulate how individuals can be assigned on a temporary basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's assignment had breached these regulations.

This makes Halligan's role on subsequent cases against James and Comey, again, uncertain.

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

But Bondi said on Monday that she designated Halligan a special US attorney and praised her work as excellent.

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