A pair of prominent critics of President Trump secured major legal victories on the start of the week when a US judge threw out the federal indictments against them.
Over recent weeks following their charges, ex-FBI chief James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have maintained fiercely that they are innocent, claiming that the administration and DOJ are simply singling out them for retaliation.
US District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the indictments against them due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's invalid assignment as US attorney. But she also left the door open for the government to try again.
- Court throws out charges against ex-FBI director Comey and NY attorney general James
- Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have tainted the Comey trial
- What is former FBI head James Comey accused of?
Comey acknowledged that possibility after the ruling, stating he believes the former president will probably come after him again.
And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This isn't the final word on this matter.
But the DOJ faces significant hurdles to effectively try both after this setback, and legal analysts are reluctant to forecast what could occur next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.
It feels to me like unexplored legal ground, said Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.
Could the justice department challenge the ruling?
The Department of Justice can challenge Judge Currie's ruling before a higher appeals court. In this instance, that would be the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.
US Attorney General Pam Bondi indicated she would pursue this option, vowing to use all available legal action, including an immediate appeal.
In other cases, the Trump administration has aggressively appealed adverse decisions, taking cases from trial courts and sometimes accelerating its requests up to the US Supreme Court.
Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, vowed to keep fighting any further politically motivated charges through every lawful means available.
If there is an appeal, the DOJ likely would have its own attorneys argue the case, making Halligan's involvement in the appeal unclear.
Is it possible there be new charges?
The federal prosecutors accused Comey with lying to Congress and obstruction of justice. Government lawyers indicted James with financial fraud and providing false information to a financial institution.
Each entered not guilty pleas. Besides claiming Halligan's appointment was invalid, they also asserted to be targets of retaliatory legal action.
With the original indictments thrown out (although appeals might alter this), the DOJ might try to convene fresh grand juries and obtain new indictments.
As far as everything I've seen, a different attorney could bring James' case to a different grand jury and secure a new indictment, said Ms Levine.
But legal expert John Day, head of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complex process – especially in Comey's case.
It's clear that it will be strongly disputed, whether Mr Comey's case can be recharged if a properly assigned attorney is appointed and is able to secure an indictment.
He characterized the tangle of attorneys, courts, and legal filings involved as a procedural morass with no easy solutions.
It could be more difficult for the government to try to bring the identical accusations against Comey.
A key issue is the legal time limit – the deadline that prosecutors had to indict him for these specific allegations – which ended at the close of September. Nonetheless, the dismissal of the charges would activate a half-year extension for the justice department to refile the case.
Still in that case, his lawyers said it plans to argue the prosecution is out of time.
The ruling also suggests that because the indictment is invalid, the time limit has run and there can be no new indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.
What happens to Lindsey Halligan?
In the pair of rulings on the charges against James and Comey, Judge Currie was blunt: Halligan was wrongly appointed.
The judge stated in the James decision that the AG's effort to install Ms. Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was unlawful.
Therefore, she lacked legal power to present the indictment, the judge wrote.
US attorneys are proposed by the president and require US Senate confirmation. Federal statutes regulate how people can be assigned on a temporary basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's assignment had breached these laws.
That leaves Halligan's role on subsequent cases against James and Comey, once more, unclear.
The decision might also cast a shadow on any other cases Halligan has brought in the Virginia Eastern District where she works.
But Attorney General Bondi said on Monday that she designated her a special federal prosecutor and praised her work as outstanding.
The administration stood by its stance that Halligan's appointment was legal, press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.
