A pair of well-known opponents of former President Trump achieved major legal victories on the start of the week when a US judge threw out the federal indictments against them.
For weeks since their indictments, ex-FBI chief James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have insisted fiercely that they are innocent, claiming that the administration and DOJ are merely singling out them for retaliation.
Federal Judge Cameron Currie tossed the charges against them due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's improper appointment as federal prosecutor. However, she left open the possibility for the government to refile the case.
- Judge dismisses charges against ex-FBI director Comey and New York AG James
- US judge says government 'missteps' may have tainted the Comey trial
- What is former FBI head James Comey accused of?
Comey admitted that possibility after the decision, saying he believes the former president is likely to come after him again.
And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This will not be the final word on this issue.
But the DOJ confronts steep hurdles to successfully prosecute either after this setback, and legal analysts hesitate to forecast what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.
It feels to me like unexplored legal ground, stated Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.
Might the DOJ appeal?
The Department of Justice can challenge the judge's decision before a federal appeals court. In this instance, that would be the Fourth Circuit Appeals Court.
US Attorney General Pam Bondi signaled she would take this route, vowing to use all available legal action, including an expedited appeal.
Previously, the former administration has strongly challenged unfavourable rulings, moving cases from trial courts and sometimes fast-tracking its requests up to the Supreme Court.
Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, pledged to continue to challenge any further politically driven indictments through every lawful means available.
In the event of an appeals process, the DOJ likely would have its own attorneys argue the case, making Halligan's involvement in the appeal unclear.
Could there be new charges?
The government charged James Comey with lying to lawmakers and obstructing justice. Federal prosecutors charged James with financial fraud and providing false information to a financial institution.
Each entered not guilty pleas. Besides arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, they also claimed to be victims of retaliatory legal action.
Since the initial charges were dismissed (though, of course, appeals could change that), the government might try to convene fresh grand juries and secure new charges.
Based on my analysis, a new prosecutor could present James's case to a new grand jury and secure a new indictment, stated Ms Levine.
But John Day, president of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complex process – especially in the Comey matter.
I can tell you it will be strongly disputed, whether Mr Comey's case can be recharged if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is assigned and is able to secure an indictment.
He characterized the tangle of attorneys, courts, and legal filings involved as a legal quagmire with no easy solutions.
It might be harder for the government to try to bring the exact same charges against Comey.
One problem is the legal time limit – the deadline that prosecutors had to charge him for these particular claims – which ended at the end of September. Nonetheless, the dismissal of the charges would activate a six-month grace period for the justice department to bring the case again.
Even so in that case, his legal team said it plans to contend the government is past the deadline.
The ruling also suggests that since the indictment is void, the time limit has run and there can be no further indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.
What is the fate of Lindsey Halligan?
In the pair of rulings on the charges against Comey and James, Judge Currie was direct: Halligan was wrongly appointed.
The judge stated in the James decision that the Attorney General's attempt to install Halligan as Interim US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was unlawful.
As a result, Halligan had no lawful authority to present the indictment, the judge wrote.
US attorneys are proposed by the US president and need Senate approval. Federal statutes govern how people can be appointed on a temporary basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's assignment had violated these regulations.
This makes Halligan's position on subsequent cases against James and Comey, again, unclear.
The ruling also could raise doubts on 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 US attorney and commended her work as excellent.
The White House maintained its position that Halligan was lawfully appointed, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.
