🔗 Share this article

A pair of prominent critics of President Trump secured major legal victories on the start of the week when a US judge dismissed the government's charges filed against them.

For weeks since their indictments, ex-FBI chief James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have insisted fiercely that they are not guilty, claiming that the president and justice department are merely singling out them for revenge.

US District Judge Cameron Currie tossed the indictments against them due to prosecutor 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 New York AG James
• Federal judge states DOJ errors may have tainted Comey case
• What is former FBI head James Comey accused of?

Comey admitted that possibility after the decision, stating he thinks the former president is likely to come after him again.

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

But the DOJ confronts steep obstacles to successfully prosecute either after this setback, and experts are reluctant to predict what could happen next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

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

Might the justice department appeal?

The DOJ can contest the judge's decision before a higher appeals court. In this instance, that would be the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

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

Previously, the former administration has strongly challenged unfavourable rulings, moving cases from trial courts and sometimes accelerating its requests up to the Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, pledged to keep fighting any further politically driven indictments through every lawful means available.

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

Is it possible there be new charges?

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

Both pleaded not guilty. In addition to claiming Halligan was unlawfully appointed, they also claimed to be victims of retaliatory legal action.

With the original indictments thrown out (although appeals might alter this), the DOJ might try to convene fresh grand juries and secure new charges.

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

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

It's clear that it will be hotly contested, whether Comey's case can be re-indicted if a properly assigned attorney is appointed and is able to secure an indictment.

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

It could be more difficult for the government to try to bring the identical accusations against James Comey.

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the deadline that prosecutors had to indict Comey for these particular claims – which ended at the close of September. However, the dismissal of the charges would trigger a half-year extension for the DOJ to bring the case again.

Still in that situation, his lawyers said it intends to contend the prosecution is out of time.

The decision further indicates that since the charge is invalid, 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 charges against James and Comey, Judge Currie was blunt: Halligan's appointment was improper.

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

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

Federal prosecutors are proposed by the president and require Senate approval. US laws govern how individuals can be assigned on a temporary basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's appointment had breached these laws.

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

The ruling also could raise doubts on any other cases Halligan has prosecuted in the Virginia Eastern District where she serves.

But Attorney General Bondi said on Monday that she designated Halligan a special US attorney and commended her work as excellent.

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