🔗 Share this article

A pair of high-profile critics of former President Trump secured significant legal victories on the start of the week when a federal judge threw out the government's charges filed against them.

For weeks since their indictments, ex-FBI chief James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have insisted fiercely that they are innocent, asserting that the administration and DOJ are simply targeting them for retaliation.

US District Judge Cameron Currie tossed the indictments against them due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's improper appointment as US attorney. However, she left open the possibility for the government to refile the case.

• Court throws out charges against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• US judge says government 'missteps' may have compromised the Comey trial
• What are former FBI head James Comey charged with?

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

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

But the DOJ confronts significant hurdles to effectively try either after this setback, and experts hesitate to predict what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

It feels to me like uncharted territory, stated Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Might the justice department appeal?

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

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

Previously, the former administration has aggressively appealed unfavourable rulings, moving cases from trial courts and sometimes accelerating its requests up to the US Supreme Court.

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

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

Is it possible there be fresh indictments?

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

Both pleaded not guilty. Besides claiming Halligan's appointment was invalid, both also asserted to be victims of vindictive prosecution.

With the original indictments thrown out (though, of course, appeals could change that), the DOJ might try to assemble fresh grand juries and obtain new indictments.

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

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

It's clear that it will be hotly contested, whether Mr Comey's case can be re-indicted if a properly assigned attorney is appointed and is able to secure an charge.

He characterized the complex web of attorneys, courts, and motions involved as a procedural morass with no easy solutions.

It could be more difficult for the DOJ to try to bring the identical accusations against James Comey.

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the deadline that prosecutors had to charge Comey for these particular claims – which expired at the end 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 situation, his legal team said it plans to argue the government is past the deadline.

The ruling also suggests that because the charge is void, the statute of limitations has run and there can be no new indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said on Monday.

What happens to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

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

Judge Currie wrote in the James ruling that the AG's effort to appoint Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was invalid.

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

US attorneys are proposed by the US president and need Senate approval. Federal statutes regulate how people can be appointed on a temporary basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's appointment had breached these laws.

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

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

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

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