🔗 Share this article

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

Over recent weeks following their charges, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have argued fiercely that they are not guilty, claiming that the administration and DOJ are merely singling out them for retaliation.

US District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the indictments against them due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's improper appointment as federal prosecutor. But she also left open the possibility for the government to refile the case.

• Judge dismisses cases against former FBI chief Comey and New York AG James
• US judge says government 'missteps' may have tainted Comey case
• What is ex-FBI director James Comey accused of?

Comey admitted that possibility after the decision, stating he thinks the former president will probably come after him again.

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This isn't the last chapter on this matter.

But the government confronts significant obstacles to successfully prosecute both after this setback, and legal analysts are reluctant to predict what could occur 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 DOJ can contest the judge's decision before a federal appeals court. In this case, that would be the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Attorney General Pam Bondi signaled she would take this route, pledging to use all legal means, including an immediate 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, James's lawyer, pledged to continue to challenge any further politically driven indictments through all legal avenues.

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

Is it possible there be fresh indictments?

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

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

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

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

But 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 appointed and is able to secure an charge.

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

It could be harder 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 charge Comey for these particular claims – which expired at the end of September. However, the dismissal of the charges would activate a half-year extension for the justice department to refile the case.

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

The decision further indicates that since the indictment is invalid, the time limit has expired and there can be no new indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What is the fate of Lindsey Halligan?

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

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

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

US attorneys are proposed by the US president and need Senate approval. Federal statutes regulate how people can be appointed on a interim basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's appointment had breached these laws.

That leaves Halligan's position on subsequent cases against both individuals, again, uncertain.

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

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

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