🔗 Share this article

Two well-known critics of former President Trump secured major legal victories on Monday when a US judge dismissed the government's charges against them.

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

Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges in their cases due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's improper assignment as US attorney. However, she left the door open for the federal authorities to refile the case.

• Judge dismisses charges against ex-FBI director Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states DOJ errors may have compromised the Comey trial
• What is former FBI head James Comey accused of?

Comey acknowledged that possibility after the ruling, stating he believes Trump is likely to come after him once more.

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This isn't the last chapter on this matter.

But the DOJ confronts significant obstacles to successfully prosecute either after this setback, and experts hesitate to predict what could occur next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

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

Could the DOJ challenge the ruling?

The Department of Justice can contest 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 take this route, vowing to use all legal means, including an immediate appeal.

Previously, the Trump administration has strongly challenged unfavourable rulings, moving cases from trial courts and sometimes fast-tracking its petitions up to the Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, pledged to continue to challenge any additional politically motivated charges through all legal avenues.

If there is an appeal, the DOJ likely would have its own lawyers present the arguments, making Halligan's involvement in the appeals process uncertain.

Is it possible there be fresh indictments?

The government charged Comey with making false statements to lawmakers and obstruction of justice. Federal prosecutors charged Letitia James with financial fraud and making false statements to a bank.

Both entered not guilty pleas. In addition to arguing Halligan's appointment was invalid, both 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 fresh grand juries and obtain new charges.

As far as everything I've seen, a new prosecutor could bring James' case to a new grand jury and get a fresh indictment, said Ms Levine.

But John Day, president of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complicated path – certainly in the Comey matter.

I can tell you it will be strongly disputed, whether Mr Comey's case can be re-indicted if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is assigned and is can obtain an charge.

He characterized the tangle of lawyers, judges, and legal filings involved as a procedural morass with no easy solutions.

It could be harder for the government to try to file the identical accusations against Comey.

One problem is the statute of limitations – the deadline that prosecutors had to indict him for these specific allegations – which expired at the close of September. Nonetheless, the dismissal of the charges would activate a six-month grace period for the DOJ to refile the case.

Still in that case, his lawyers said it intends to contend the government is past the deadline.

The decision further indicates that since the charge is invalid, the time limit 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 Comey and James, the judge was blunt: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

Judge Currie wrote in the James ruling that the AG's effort to install Ms. Halligan as Interim US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was unlawful.

As a result, she lacked legal power to file the charges, she wrote.

US attorneys are proposed by the US president and need US Senate confirmation. US laws regulate how individuals can be appointed on a interim basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's appointment had violated these regulations.

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

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

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

The White House maintained its position that Halligan was lawfully appointed, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told the press on Monday.