🔗 Share this article

Two well-known critics of President Trump obtained significant court wins on the start of the week when a US judge dismissed the federal indictments against them.

For weeks since their indictments, ex-FBI chief James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have insisted vehemently that they are innocent, claiming that the administration and DOJ are simply targeting them for retaliation.

US District Judge Cameron Currie tossed the indictments in their cases due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's invalid appointment as federal prosecutor. But she also left open the possibility for the government to refile the case.

• Court throws out cases against former FBI chief Comey and New York AG James
• Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have compromised the Comey trial
• What is ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

Comey admitted that likelihood after the decision, saying he thinks Trump will probably come after him once more.

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

But the government faces steep obstacles to successfully prosecute either after this setback, and legal analysts are reluctant to forecast what could occur next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

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

Could the justice department challenge the ruling?

The Department of Justice can challenge 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 signaled she would pursue this option, pledging to use all available legal action, including an immediate appeal.

Previously, the former administration has aggressively appealed unfavourable rulings, taking cases from lower courts and sometimes accelerating its petitions up to the US Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, vowed to continue to challenge any additional politically motivated charges through every lawful means available.

In the event of an appeals process, the DOJ probably would have its own lawyers present the arguments, making Halligan's involvement in the appeal uncertain.

Is it possible there be fresh indictments?

The federal prosecutors accused Comey with lying to Congress and obstruction of justice. Government lawyers indicted Letitia James with financial fraud and providing false information to a financial institution.

Both entered not guilty pleas. In addition to arguing Halligan's appointment was invalid, both also asserted to be victims of vindictive prosecution.

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

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

But John Day, head 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 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 described the tangle of lawyers, courts, and motions involved as a legal quagmire with no easy solutions.

It could be more difficult for the government to try to file the exact same charges against James Comey.

One problem is the legal time limit – the deadline that government lawyers had to indict him for these particular claims – which expired at the end of September. Nonetheless, the dismissal of the charges would trigger a half-year extension for the DOJ to refile the case.

Still in that case, his lawyers said it intends to argue the government is out of time.

The ruling also suggests that because the indictment is void, the statute of limitations has run and there can be no further indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What is the fate of Lindsey Halligan?

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

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

Therefore, Halligan had no lawful authority to present the indictment, the judge wrote.

Federal prosecutors are nominated by the US president and need US Senate confirmation. Federal statutes regulate how people can be appointed on a temporary basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's appointment had breached these laws.

That leaves Halligan's role on future cases against James and Comey, once more, uncertain.

The decision might also raise doubts on other cases Halligan has prosecuted in the Eastern District of Virginia where she serves.

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

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