🔗 Share this article

Two prominent critics of President Trump achieved significant court wins on the start of the week when a US judge threw out the federal indictments against them.

For weeks following their charges, former FBI Director James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have insisted fiercely that they are innocent, claiming that the president and justice department are simply singling out them for retaliation.

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

• Court throws out charges against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states DOJ errors may have tainted Comey case
• What are former FBI head James Comey charged with?

Comey admitted that possibility after the decision, stating he thinks Trump is likely to target him once more.

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

But the DOJ faces steep hurdles to successfully prosecute either after this defeat, and experts are reluctant to predict 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.

Might the DOJ challenge the ruling?

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

US Attorney General Pam Bondi signaled she would take this route, pledging to use all available legal action, including an expedited appeal.

In other cases, the Trump administration has aggressively appealed adverse decisions, taking cases from lower courts and sometimes fast-tracking its petitions up to the US Supreme Court.

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

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

Is it possible there be fresh indictments?

The government charged Comey with lying to Congress and obstruction of justice. Federal prosecutors charged Letitia James with financial fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

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

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

As far as everything I've seen, a new prosecutor could bring James' case to a new grand jury and get a fresh indictment, said Ms Levine.

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

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

He characterized the tangle of attorneys, judges, and motions involved as a procedural morass with no easy solutions.

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

One problem is the legal time limit – the deadline that prosecutors had to charge him for these specific allegations – which ended at the end of September. Nonetheless, the indictment's dismissal would activate a six-month grace period for the justice department to bring the case again.

Even so in that case, his lawyers said it plans to contend the government is out of time.

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

What is the fate of Lindsey Halligan?

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

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

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

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

This makes Halligan's position on future cases against both individuals, again, uncertain.

The ruling also could cast a shadow on other cases Halligan has brought in the Eastern District of Virginia where she works.

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

The White House maintained its position that Halligan was lawfully appointed, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told the press on Monday.