🔗 Share this article

A pair of well-known critics of President Trump achieved major legal victories on the start of the week when a US judge threw out the government's charges against them.

For weeks following their charges, ex-FBI chief James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have maintained vehemently that they are innocent, asserting that the administration and DOJ are merely targeting them for retaliation.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie tossed the indictments against them due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's invalid appointment as US attorney. But she also left open the possibility for the government to refile the case.

• Judge dismisses charges against ex-FBI director Comey and NY attorney general James
• US judge says DOJ errors may have tainted Comey case
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

Comey acknowledged that possibility after the ruling, saying he thinks the former president is likely to come after him again.

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This will not be the last chapter on this issue.

But the DOJ faces steep obstacles to effectively try both after this setback, and experts 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 justice department appeal?

The Department of Justice can contest the judge's decision 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, vowing to use all legal means, including an expedited appeal.

In other cases, the former administration has aggressively appealed adverse decisions, taking cases from lower courts and sometimes accelerating its requests up to the Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, pledged to keep fighting any further politically driven indictments through every lawful means available.

In the event of an appeal, the DOJ likely would have its own attorneys argue the case, making Halligan's involvement in the appeals process uncertain.

Is it possible there be new charges?

The government charged James Comey with lying to Congress and obstructing justice. Federal prosecutors indicted James with bank fraud and providing false information to a bank.

Both entered not guilty pleas. Besides claiming Halligan's appointment was invalid, they also asserted to be victims of retaliatory legal action.

With the original indictments thrown out (though, of course, appeals could change that), the government might try to convene new grand juries and secure new indictments.

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

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

It's clear that it will be hotly contested, whether Mr Comey's case can be recharged if a properly assigned attorney is appointed and is can obtain an charge.

He described the tangle of attorneys, courts, and legal filings involved as a legal quagmire with no simple answers.

It could be harder for the government to try to file the identical accusations against Comey.

One problem is the legal time limit – the time frame that prosecutors had to charge him for these particular claims – which expired at the end of September. However, the indictment's dismissal would activate a half-year extension for the justice department to refile the case.

Still in that case, his legal team said it intends to contend the government is out of time.

The ruling also suggests that since the charge is void, the statute of limitations has expired and there can be no further indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said on Monday.

What is the fate of Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the indictments against James and Comey, Judge Currie was blunt: 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 unlawful.

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

US attorneys are proposed by the US president and need US Senate confirmation. Federal statutes regulate how people can be appointed on a interim basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's appointment had violated these regulations.

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

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

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

The White House maintained its position that Halligan's appointment was legal, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.