🔗 Share this article

A pair of well-known critics of former President Trump achieved significant legal victories on the start of the week when a federal 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 fiercely that they are not guilty, asserting that the administration and DOJ are simply targeting them for retaliation.

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

• Judge dismisses charges against former FBI chief Comey and New York AG James
• US judge says DOJ errors may have tainted Comey case
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

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

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

But the DOJ faces significant hurdles to effectively try either after this defeat, and legal analysts hesitate to predict what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

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

Might the DOJ appeal?

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

US Attorney General Pam Bondi indicated she would take this route, vowing to use all legal means, including an immediate appeal.

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

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

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 unclear.

Is it possible there be fresh indictments?

The federal prosecutors charged James Comey with lying to Congress and obstruction of justice. Government lawyers indicted Letitia James with bank fraud and providing false information to a financial institution.

Both entered not guilty pleas. Besides arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also claimed to be victims of vindictive prosecution.

With the original indictments thrown out (although appeals might alter this), the DOJ might try to assemble fresh grand juries and secure new charges.

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

But legal expert John Day, president 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 strongly disputed, whether Mr Comey's case can be recharged if a properly assigned attorney is assigned and is able to secure an charge.

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

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

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

Still in that situation, his legal team said it plans to argue the government is out of time.

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

What is the fate of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the charges against Comey and James, the judge was blunt: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

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

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

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

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

The ruling also could raise doubts on other cases Halligan has prosecuted in the Virginia Eastern District where she serves.

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

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