🔗 Share this article

A pair of prominent critics of President Trump secured significant legal victories on Monday when a federal judge dismissed the government's charges against them.

For weeks following their charges, ex-FBI chief James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have insisted vehemently that they are not guilty, claiming that the president and justice department are simply targeting them for revenge.

US District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges in their cases due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's invalid appointment as US attorney. However, she left open the possibility for the government to refile the case.

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

Comey admitted that possibility after the decision, stating he thinks Trump will probably target him once more.

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

But the government faces steep obstacles to successfully prosecute both after this setback, and legal analysts hesitate to forecast what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

It feels to me like unexplored legal ground, said Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Could the DOJ appeal?

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

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

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

Attorney Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, vowed to keep fighting any further politically driven indictments through all legal avenues.

If there is an appeal, the DOJ probably would have its own lawyers present the arguments, making Halligan's role in the appeals process unclear.

Could there be new charges?

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

Both pleaded not guilty. In addition to arguing Halligan's appointment was invalid, both also asserted to be targets of retaliatory legal action.

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

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

But 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 strongly disputed, whether Comey's case can be re-indicted if a properly assigned attorney is appointed and is able to secure an charge.

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

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

One problem is the statute of limitations – the time frame that prosecutors had to charge Comey for these particular claims – which ended at the end of September. However, the indictment's dismissal would activate a six-month grace period for the DOJ to bring the case again.

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

The ruling also suggests that because the charge is void, the time limit has run and there can be no new indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said on Monday.

What is the fate of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

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

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

As a result, she lacked legal power to file the charges, she wrote.

Federal prosecutors are proposed by the US president and require US Senate confirmation. Federal statutes govern how individuals can be assigned on a interim basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's appointment had breached these laws.

That leaves Halligan's position on subsequent cases against James and Comey, once more, uncertain.

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

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

The White House stood by its stance that Halligan was lawfully appointed, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.