🔗 Share this article

Two prominent critics of President Trump achieved major court wins on Monday when a federal judge dismissed the government's charges filed against them.

Over recent weeks since their indictments, ex-FBI chief James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have maintained vehemently that they are innocent, claiming that the president and justice department are merely targeting them for revenge.

US District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges against them due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's improper assignment as federal prosecutor. But she also left open the possibility for the federal authorities to refile the case.

• Judge dismisses charges against ex-FBI director Comey and New York AG James
• Federal judge states DOJ errors may have tainted Comey case
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey accused of?

Comey admitted that possibility after the ruling, saying he thinks the former president will probably target him once more.

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This will not be the last chapter on this issue.

But the government faces steep hurdles to successfully prosecute either after this defeat, and legal analysts are reluctant to forecast what could occur next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

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

Might the DOJ challenge the ruling?

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

US Attorney General Pam Bondi signaled she would take this route, pledging to use all available legal action, including an expedited appeal.

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

Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, vowed to continue to challenge any additional politically driven indictments through all legal avenues.

In the event of an appeals process, the justice department probably would have its own lawyers present the arguments, making Halligan's involvement in the appeals process uncertain.

Could there be fresh indictments?

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

Both entered not guilty pleas. Besides arguing Halligan's appointment was invalid, they also claimed to be targets of vindictive prosecution.

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

As far as everything I've seen, 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, president of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complex process – especially in Comey's case.

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 complex web of lawyers, courts, and motions involved as a legal quagmire with no simple answers.

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

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the time frame that government lawyers had to charge him for these particular claims – which expired at the end of September. However, the dismissal of the charges would trigger a six-month grace period for the justice department to bring the case again.

Even so in that situation, his lawyers said it plans to contend 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 new indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What is the fate of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

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

The judge stated in the James decision that the AG's effort to install Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was invalid.

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

US attorneys are nominated by the US president and need Senate approval. US laws regulate how people can be assigned on a interim basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's assignment had violated these laws.

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

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

But Bondi said on that day that she made her a special federal prosecutor and commended her work as excellent.

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