🔗 Share this article

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

For weeks following their charges, ex-FBI chief James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have argued vehemently that they are not guilty, asserting that the president and justice department are merely targeting them for revenge.

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

• Judge dismisses cases against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have compromised Comey case
• What are former FBI head James Comey accused of?

Comey admitted that likelihood after the decision, saying he thinks Trump is likely to target him again.

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This will not be the last chapter on this issue.

But the DOJ faces significant obstacles to effectively try both after this setback, and legal analysts hesitate to forecast what could occur next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

It feels to me like uncharted territory, stated Professor Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Could the DOJ challenge the ruling?

The DOJ can contest 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 pursue this option, vowing to use all legal means, including an expedited appeal.

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

Attorney Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, pledged to continue to challenge any further politically motivated charges through every lawful means available.

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

Could there be fresh indictments?

The government accused James Comey with lying to Congress and obstruction of justice. Government lawyers indicted James with bank fraud and providing false information to a bank.

Both pleaded not guilty. Besides arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, they 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 convene new grand juries and obtain new indictments.

Based on my analysis, a new prosecutor could bring James' case to a new grand jury and get a fresh indictment, stated Professor Levine.

But legal expert John Day, president of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complicated path – certainly in Comey's case.

It's clear that it will be strongly disputed, whether Comey's case can be re-indicted if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is appointed and is can obtain an charge.

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

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

One problem is the statute of limitations – the deadline that government lawyers had to charge Comey for these specific allegations – which expired at the close of September. Nonetheless, the indictment's dismissal would trigger a six-month grace period for the DOJ to bring the case again.

Still in that case, his legal team said it intends to argue 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, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said on Monday.

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings on the indictments against Comey and James, Judge Currie was blunt: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

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

Therefore, she lacked legal power to present the indictment, she wrote.

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

That leaves Halligan's position on subsequent cases against James and Comey, once more, unclear.

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

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

The White House maintained its position that Halligan's appointment was legal, press secretary Karoline Leavitt told the press on Monday.