🔗 Share this article

Two well-known critics of former President Trump secured significant court wins on the start of the week when a US judge threw out the government's charges against them.

Over recent weeks since their indictments, 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 merely targeting them for revenge.

US District Judge Cameron Currie tossed the charges against them due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's improper appointment as US attorney. 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
• Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have tainted Comey case
• What is former FBI head James Comey accused of?

Comey admitted that possibility after the ruling, saying he thinks the former president will probably target him once more.

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

But the government confronts significant hurdles to successfully prosecute both after this setback, and experts are reluctant to predict what could happen next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

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

Might the justice department appeal?

The Department of Justice can challenge Judge Currie's ruling before a higher appeals court. In this instance, that would be the Fourth Circuit Appeals Court.

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

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

Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, vowed to keep fighting any additional politically driven indictments through all legal avenues.

If there is an appeal, the justice department likely would have its own attorneys argue the case, making Halligan's involvement in the appeal uncertain.

Could there be fresh indictments?

The government charged James Comey with making false statements to lawmakers and obstruction of justice. Government lawyers indicted James with financial fraud and providing false information to a bank.

Each pleaded not guilty. Besides claiming Halligan's appointment was invalid, both also asserted to be targets of retaliatory legal action.

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

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

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

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

He described the tangle of attorneys, courts, and legal filings involved as a procedural morass with no simple answers.

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

A key issue is the legal time limit – the time frame that prosecutors had to charge him for these specific allegations – which expired at the end of September. However, the indictment's dismissal would activate a six-month grace period for the DOJ to refile the case.

Even so in that situation, his legal team said it plans to argue the prosecution is out of time.

The decision further indicates that because the charge is invalid, the statute of limitations has expired and there can be no further indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What happens to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

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

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

Therefore, Halligan lacked legal power to file the charges, she wrote.

Federal prosecutors are proposed by the president and need US Senate confirmation. US laws govern how individuals can be appointed on a interim basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's assignment had violated 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 her a special federal prosecutor and commended her work as outstanding.

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