🔗 Share this article

Two well-known critics of former President Trump obtained major court wins on Monday when a US judge dismissed the government's charges filed against them.

Over recent weeks following their charges, ex-FBI chief James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have insisted vehemently that they are innocent, claiming that the administration and DOJ are merely singling out them for retaliation.

US District Judge Cameron Currie tossed the charges against them due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's invalid appointment as US attorney. But she also left open the possibility for the government to try again.

• Court throws out cases against ex-FBI director Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have tainted the Comey trial
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

Comey acknowledged that possibility after the ruling, stating he thinks Trump will probably come after him once more.

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This isn't the last chapter on this matter.

But the DOJ faces steep obstacles to effectively try either after this setback, and legal analysts hesitate to predict what could occur next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

It feels to me like uncharted territory, stated Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Might the DOJ appeal?

The Department of Justice can challenge the judge's decision before a higher appeals court. In this case, that would be the Fourth Circuit Appeals Court.

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

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

Attorney Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, pledged to keep fighting any additional politically motivated charges through every lawful means available.

In the event of an appeals process, the justice department probably would have its own attorneys present the arguments, making Halligan's role in the appeal unclear.

Could there be new charges?

The government charged James Comey with lying to lawmakers and obstructing justice. Government lawyers indicted Letitia James with bank fraud and providing false information to a bank.

Each entered not guilty pleas. Besides arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, they also claimed to be targets of retaliatory legal action.

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

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

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

I can tell you it will be strongly disputed, whether Mr Comey's case can be recharged if a properly assigned attorney is assigned and is able to secure an indictment.

He characterized the tangle of lawyers, courts, and legal filings involved as a legal quagmire with no easy solutions.

It might be more difficult for the DOJ to try to file the identical accusations against Comey.

A key issue is the legal time limit – the time frame that government lawyers had to charge him for these particular claims – which expired at the close of September. Nonetheless, the indictment's dismissal would trigger a six-month grace period for the DOJ to bring the case again.

Still in that case, his lawyers said it intends to argue the prosecution is out of time.

The decision further indicates that because the indictment is void, the time limit has run and there can be no new indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings on the charges against Comey and James, Judge Currie was direct: Halligan's appointment was improper.

Judge Currie wrote in the James decision that the Attorney General's attempt to install Ms. Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was invalid.

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

US attorneys are proposed by the US president and need Senate approval. US laws regulate how individuals can be appointed on a interim basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's assignment had breached these laws.

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

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

But Bondi said on that day that she designated Halligan a special US attorney and commended her work as outstanding.

The administration stood by its stance that Halligan's appointment was legal, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told the press on Monday.