🔗 Share this article

A pair of prominent critics of former President Trump obtained major court wins on Monday when a US judge dismissed the government's charges against them.

Over recent weeks following their charges, former FBI Director James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have insisted vehemently that they are not guilty, asserting that the administration and DOJ are simply targeting them for retaliation.

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

• Court throws out charges against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• US judge says DOJ errors may have tainted the Comey trial
• What is former FBI head James Comey accused of?

Comey acknowledged that likelihood after the decision, saying he thinks the former president will probably target him again.

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

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

In my view, it's unexplored legal ground, said Professor Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Could the DOJ 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.

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

In other cases, the former administration has strongly challenged adverse decisions, taking cases from lower courts and sometimes fast-tracking its petitions up to the Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, vowed to continue to challenge any additional politically motivated charges through every lawful means available.

In the event of an appeals process, the justice department likely would have its own attorneys argue the case, making Halligan's involvement in the appeals process uncertain.

Is it possible there be new charges?

The government accused Comey with making false statements to Congress and obstructing justice. Government lawyers charged Letitia James with bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

Each entered not guilty pleas. Besides claiming Halligan was unlawfully appointed, they also claimed to be targets of retaliatory legal action.

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

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

But John Day, head of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complex process – especially in the Comey matter.

I can tell you it will be strongly disputed, whether Comey's case can be recharged if a properly assigned attorney is assigned and is can obtain an charge.

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

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

One problem is the statute of limitations – the deadline that government lawyers had to charge Comey for these specific allegations – which ended at the end of September. However, the dismissal of the charges would activate a half-year extension for the justice department to bring the case again.

Still in that case, his legal team said it intends to contend the prosecution is out of time.

The ruling also suggests that because the charge is invalid, the time limit has run and there can be no further indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings on the indictments against James and Comey, the judge was direct: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

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 invalid.

As a result, she had no lawful authority to file the charges, the judge wrote.

US attorneys are nominated by the US president and need Senate approval. US laws regulate how individuals can be assigned on a temporary basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's assignment had violated 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 Virginia Eastern District where she works.

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

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