A pair of well-known critics of President Trump obtained major legal victories on the start of the week when a federal judge dismissed the government's charges filed against them.
Over recent weeks following their charges, ex-FBI chief James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have maintained fiercely that they are not guilty, asserting that the president and justice department are simply targeting them for revenge.
Federal Judge Cameron Currie tossed the indictments against them due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's improper appointment as US attorney. However, she left the door open for the government to try again.
- Court throws out cases against ex-FBI director Comey and New York AG James
- US judge says government 'missteps' may have tainted Comey case
- What is former FBI head James Comey accused of?
Comey admitted that possibility after the ruling, stating he thinks the former president is likely to come after him again.
And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This will not be the final word on this issue.
But the DOJ faces significant hurdles to effectively try either 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, stated Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.
Could the DOJ challenge the ruling?
The DOJ can challenge the judge's decision before a higher appeals court. In this case, that would be the Fourth Circuit Appeals Court.
Attorney General Pam Bondi signaled she would pursue this option, vowing to use all available legal action, including an expedited appeal.
Previously, the Trump administration has strongly challenged adverse decisions, taking cases from lower courts and sometimes accelerating its petitions up to the Supreme Court.
Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, vowed to continue to challenge any additional politically motivated charges through every lawful means available.
In the event of an appeal, the DOJ likely would have its own attorneys argue the case, making Halligan's involvement in the appeal uncertain.
Could there be new charges?
The government accused James Comey with making false statements to Congress and obstructing justice. Government lawyers charged Letitia James with bank fraud and providing false information to a bank.
Both pleaded not guilty. In addition to claiming Halligan was unlawfully appointed, they also claimed to be victims of retaliatory legal action.
With the original indictments thrown out (though, of course, appeals could change that), the DOJ might try to assemble new grand juries and obtain new charges.
Based on my analysis, a different attorney could bring James' case to a different 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 complicated path – especially in the Comey matter.
I can tell you it will be hotly contested, whether Comey's case can be recharged if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is appointed and is able to secure an charge.
He described the tangle of attorneys, judges, and legal filings involved as a procedural morass with no simple answers.
It might be more difficult for the government to try to file the identical accusations against Comey.
One problem is the legal time limit – the deadline that prosecutors had to indict him for these specific allegations – which expired at the close of September. Nonetheless, the dismissal of the charges would trigger a six-month grace period for the justice department to bring the case again.
Even so in that situation, his legal team said it plans to contend the government is out of time.
The ruling also suggests that because the indictment is void, the time limit has run and there can be no new indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said on Monday.
What is the fate of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?
In the pair of rulings on the indictments against James and Comey, Judge Currie was blunt: Halligan was wrongly appointed.
The judge stated in the James decision that the Attorney General's attempt to appoint Ms. Halligan as Interim US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was invalid.
As a result, Halligan lacked legal power to present the indictment, the judge wrote.
US attorneys are proposed by the US president and require Senate approval. Federal statutes regulate how individuals can be appointed on a interim basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's appointment had violated these regulations.
That leaves Halligan's role on subsequent cases against James and Comey, once more, unclear.
The decision might also cast a shadow on other cases Halligan has brought in the Virginia Eastern District where she serves.
But Attorney General Bondi said on Monday that she made her a special US attorney and praised her work as excellent.
The administration maintained its position that Halligan's appointment was legal, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.
