🔗 Share this article

A pair of well-known critics of President Trump secured major court wins on Monday when a US judge threw out the government's charges against them.

Over recent weeks since their indictments, ex-FBI chief James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have argued vehemently that they are not guilty, asserting that the administration and DOJ are simply targeting them for retaliation.

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

• Court throws out cases against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• US judge says government 'missteps' may have compromised Comey case
• What are former FBI head James Comey accused of?

Comey acknowledged that possibility after the decision, stating he thinks the former president will probably come after him once more.

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This will not be the last chapter on this matter.

But the DOJ faces significant hurdles to effectively try either after this defeat, and experts hesitate to predict what could happen next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

In my view, it's uncharted territory, said Professor Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Might the DOJ appeal?

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

Attorney General Pam Bondi indicated she would take this route, vowing to use all legal means, including an immediate appeal.

In other cases, the Trump administration has aggressively appealed unfavourable rulings, moving cases from trial courts and sometimes accelerating its requests up to the US Supreme Court.

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

In the event of an appeals process, the justice department probably would have its own lawyers argue the case, making Halligan's role in the appeal unclear.

Could there be new charges?

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

Both pleaded not guilty. In addition to claiming Halligan's appointment was invalid, both also claimed to be targets of retaliatory legal action.

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

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

He characterized the complex web of attorneys, judges, and motions involved as a procedural morass with no easy solutions.

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

One problem is the statute of limitations – the time frame that prosecutors had to indict 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 case, his lawyers said it plans to argue the government is past the deadline.

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

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the indictments against James and Comey, the judge was blunt: Halligan's appointment was improper.

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

As a result, Halligan lacked legal power to present the indictment, the judge wrote.

US attorneys are nominated by the US president and require US Senate confirmation. US laws govern how people can be appointed on a temporary basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's appointment had breached these laws.

That leaves Halligan's position on future cases against both individuals, once more, unclear.

The decision might also cast a shadow on any other cases Halligan has brought in the Virginia Eastern District where she serves.

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

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