🔗 Share this article

Two high-profile critics of President Trump achieved significant legal victories on Monday when a federal judge threw out the government's charges against them.

Over recent weeks following their charges, former FBI Director James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have argued vehemently that they are innocent, claiming that the administration and DOJ are simply targeting them for revenge.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie tossed the indictments in their cases due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's invalid appointment as federal prosecutor. However, she left the door open for the federal authorities to refile the case.

• Judge dismisses cases against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have compromised the Comey trial
• What is ex-FBI director James Comey accused of?

Comey acknowledged that likelihood after the ruling, saying he believes Trump is likely to come after him again.

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This isn't the final word on this issue.

But the government faces steep hurdles to successfully prosecute either after this defeat, and experts are reluctant to predict what could happen next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

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

Might the justice department appeal?

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

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

Previously, the Trump administration has aggressively appealed unfavourable rulings, taking cases from trial courts and sometimes accelerating its petitions up to the US Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, pledged to continue to challenge any further politically driven indictments through every lawful means available.

In the event of an appeals process, the DOJ probably would have its own lawyers argue the case, making Halligan's involvement in the appeals process uncertain.

Is it possible there be new charges?

The government charged James Comey with lying to lawmakers and obstructing justice. Federal prosecutors charged James with bank fraud and providing false information to a financial institution.

Each pleaded not guilty. Besides arguing Halligan's appointment was invalid, both also claimed to be victims of vindictive prosecution.

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

As far as everything I've seen, a new prosecutor could present James's case to a different grand jury and secure a fresh indictment, said Professor Levine.

But John Day, president of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complicated path – especially in Comey's case.

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

He characterized the complex web of attorneys, courts, and motions involved as a legal quagmire with no simple answers.

It could be more difficult for the government to try to file the identical accusations against James Comey.

One problem is the legal time limit – the deadline that prosecutors had to charge him for these particular claims – which expired at the close of September. However, the dismissal of the charges would trigger a half-year extension for the justice department to bring the case again.

Even so in that case, his lawyers said it intends to argue the prosecution is past the deadline.

The decision further indicates that because the charge is void, the statute of limitations has expired and there can be no further 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, the judge was blunt: Halligan's appointment was improper.

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

Therefore, she lacked legal power to file the charges, she wrote.

Federal prosecutors are proposed by the US president and need US Senate confirmation. US laws regulate how people can be assigned on a temporary basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's assignment had breached these regulations.

That leaves Halligan's role on future cases against James and Comey, again, uncertain.

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

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

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