A pair of high-profile critics of President Trump obtained significant court wins on Monday when a US judge threw out the federal indictments filed against them.
Over recent weeks since their indictments, former FBI Director James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have insisted vehemently that they are innocent, asserting that the administration and DOJ are simply singling out them for retaliation.
Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges in their cases due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's invalid appointment as federal prosecutor. However, she left the door open for the government to try again.
Comey admitted that possibility after the decision, stating he thinks Trump is likely to target him once more.
And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This isn't the last chapter on this issue.
But the DOJ faces significant hurdles to effectively try both after this defeat, and experts hesitate to predict what could occur next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.
In my view, it's unexplored legal ground, stated Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.
The Department of Justice can contest Judge Currie's ruling before a higher 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 available legal action, including an immediate appeal.
Previously, the former administration has strongly challenged unfavourable rulings, taking cases from lower courts and sometimes fast-tracking its petitions up to the US Supreme Court.
Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, pledged to continue to challenge any additional politically driven indictments through all legal avenues.
If there is an appeals process, the DOJ probably would have its own lawyers present the arguments, making Halligan's role in the appeals process unclear.
The federal prosecutors accused Comey with making false statements to lawmakers and obstruction of justice. Government lawyers indicted James with bank fraud and providing false information to a bank.
Each pleaded not guilty. Besides arguing Halligan's appointment was invalid, both also asserted to be targets of retaliatory legal action.
With the original indictments thrown out (although appeals might alter this), the government might try to convene fresh grand juries and obtain new charges.
Based on my analysis, a different attorney could present James's case to a new grand jury and get a new indictment, stated Professor 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 strongly disputed, whether Comey's case can be re-indicted if a properly assigned attorney is assigned and is able to secure an charge.
He characterized the tangle of lawyers, judges, and motions involved as a procedural morass with no easy solutions.
It might be more difficult for the DOJ to try to bring the exact same charges against James Comey.
A key issue is the statute of limitations – the time frame that government lawyers had to charge him for these particular claims – which ended at the close of September. Nonetheless, the indictment's dismissal would trigger a half-year extension for the justice department to bring the case again.
Still in that situation, his legal team said it intends to argue the government is out of time.
The ruling also suggests that since the charge is invalid, the statute of limitations has run and there can be no new indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.
In the pair of rulings on the charges against James and Comey, Judge Currie was direct: Halligan's appointment was improper.
Judge Currie wrote in the James ruling that the AG's effort to appoint Ms. Halligan as Interim US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was invalid.
As a result, she lacked legal power to file the charges, the judge wrote.
Federal prosecutors are proposed by the president and need US Senate confirmation. Federal statutes govern how people can be appointed on a interim basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's assignment had violated these regulations.
That leaves Halligan's role on subsequent cases against both individuals, once more, uncertain.
The ruling also could raise doubts on any other cases Halligan has brought in the Virginia Eastern District where she works.
But Attorney General Bondi said on that day that she designated Halligan a special US attorney and commended her work as excellent.
The White House maintained its position that Halligan's appointment was legal, press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.
Lena Hoffmann is a seasoned journalist with a passion for uncovering stories that matter, specializing in German current affairs and digital media trends.
