🔗 Share this article

Two prominent critics of former President Trump obtained major legal victories on the start of the week when a federal judge threw out the federal indictments against them.

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

US District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges against them due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's improper appointment as US attorney. However, she left open the possibility for the government to try again.

• Judge dismisses charges against ex-FBI director Comey and NY attorney general James
• US judge says DOJ errors may have compromised Comey case
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey accused of?

Comey admitted that likelihood after the decision, saying he believes Trump will probably come after him once more.

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This isn't the final word on this issue.

But the DOJ confronts significant hurdles to successfully prosecute either after this setback, and legal analysts are reluctant to predict what could occur next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

It feels to me like uncharted territory, said Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Could the DOJ challenge the ruling?

The Department of Justice can challenge 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 signaled she would take this route, vowing to use all available legal action, including an immediate appeal.

Previously, the Trump administration has strongly challenged adverse decisions, moving cases from trial courts and sometimes accelerating its petitions up to the US Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, vowed to continue to challenge any further politically motivated charges through all legal avenues.

If there is an appeal, the DOJ probably would have its own lawyers argue the case, making Halligan's role in the appeal unclear.

Is it possible there be new charges?

The federal prosecutors accused James Comey with making false statements to Congress and obstruction of justice. Federal prosecutors indicted James with bank fraud and providing false information to a financial institution.

Each entered not guilty pleas. In addition to arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, they also claimed to be victims of vindictive prosecution.

Since the initial charges were dismissed (although appeals might alter this), the DOJ might try to assemble new grand juries and obtain 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, stated Ms Levine.

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

It's clear that it will be strongly disputed, whether Comey's case can be re-indicted if a properly assigned attorney is assigned and is can obtain an indictment.

He described the complex web of lawyers, judges, and legal filings involved as a legal quagmire with no easy solutions.

It could be harder for the government to try to file the exact same charges against Comey.

A key issue is the legal time limit – the deadline that prosecutors had to charge him for these particular claims – which expired at the end of September. However, the dismissal of the charges would activate a half-year extension for the DOJ to bring the case again.

Even so in that situation, his legal team said it plans to argue the prosecution is past the deadline.

The ruling also suggests that because the indictment is void, the time limit has expired and there can be no further 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 blunt: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

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

Therefore, she had no lawful authority to present the indictment, the judge wrote.

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

This makes Halligan's position on future cases against James and Comey, again, uncertain.

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

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

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