A pair of high-profile critics of President Trump obtained significant legal victories on Monday when a federal judge dismissed the federal indictments filed against them.
Over recent weeks following their charges, ex-FBI chief James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have insisted vehemently that they are innocent, claiming that the administration and DOJ are simply targeting them for retaliation.
US District Judge Cameron Currie tossed the indictments in their cases due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's improper assignment as federal prosecutor. However, she left open the possibility for the federal authorities to refile the case.
Comey admitted that possibility after the ruling, saying he thinks Trump 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 government confronts significant obstacles to successfully prosecute either after this setback, and experts hesitate to predict what could occur next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.
In my view, it's unexplored legal ground, stated Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.
The Department of Justice can challenge the judge's decision before a higher 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 Trump administration has aggressively appealed unfavourable rulings, moving cases from lower courts and sometimes fast-tracking its requests up to the US Supreme Court.
Attorney Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, pledged to keep fighting any additional politically motivated charges through every lawful means available.
In the event of an appeal, the DOJ probably would have its own attorneys argue the case, making Halligan's role in the appeals process unclear.
The federal prosecutors charged Comey with lying to Congress and obstruction of justice. Government lawyers indicted James with financial fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.
Both entered not guilty pleas. In addition to claiming Halligan was unlawfully appointed, they 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 indictments.
As far as everything I've seen, a new prosecutor could bring James' case to a different grand jury and secure a new indictment, said Ms Levine.
But legal expert John Day, president 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 recharged if a properly assigned attorney is appointed and is able to secure an indictment.
He described the tangle of attorneys, judges, and legal filings involved as a procedural morass with no easy solutions.
It could be more difficult for the DOJ to try to bring the identical accusations against Comey.
One problem is the statute of limitations – the deadline that prosecutors had to indict Comey for these particular claims – which expired at the end of September. Nonetheless, the dismissal of the charges would activate a half-year extension for the justice department to bring the case again.
Even so in that case, his lawyers said it plans to contend the government is out of time.
The decision further indicates that because the indictment is void, the statute of limitations has run and there can be no further indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said on Monday.
In both decisions on the indictments 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 appoint Halligan as Interim US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was unlawful.
As a result, she lacked legal power to file the charges, the judge wrote.
Federal prosecutors are proposed by the US president and require Senate approval. US laws regulate how individuals can be assigned on a interim basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's appointment had violated these regulations.
This makes Halligan's role on future cases against James and Comey, once more, unclear.
The decision might also raise doubts on any other cases Halligan has brought in the Eastern District of Virginia where she serves.
But Attorney General Bondi said on Monday that she made her a special federal prosecutor and praised her work as excellent.
The administration stood by its stance that Halligan's appointment was legal, press secretary Karoline Leavitt told the press on Monday.
A seasoned gaming enthusiast with over a decade of experience in lottery analysis and casino reviews.
