A pair of high-profile opponents of President Trump obtained significant court wins on Monday when a federal judge threw out the government's charges filed against them.
Over recent weeks following their charges, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have maintained vehemently that they are innocent, claiming that the president and justice department are merely singling out them for revenge.
Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges in their cases due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's invalid appointment as US attorney. But she also left open the possibility for the federal authorities to refile the case.
- Judge dismisses cases against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
- US judge says DOJ errors may have compromised the Comey trial
- What is former FBI head James Comey accused of?
Comey admitted that possibility after the ruling, stating he believes Trump 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 faces significant obstacles to effectively try either after this defeat, and experts are reluctant to forecast what could occur next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.
It feels to me like unexplored legal ground, stated Professor Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.
Could the justice department appeal?
The DOJ can contest the judge's decision before a higher appeals court. In this case, that would be the Fourth Circuit Appeals Court.
US Attorney General Pam Bondi signaled she would take this route, pledging to use all available legal action, including an expedited appeal.
In other cases, the Trump administration has aggressively appealed adverse decisions, moving cases from lower courts and sometimes fast-tracking its petitions up to the Supreme Court.
Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, vowed to keep fighting any additional politically motivated charges through every lawful means available.
In the event of an appeals process, the justice department likely would have its own attorneys present the arguments, making Halligan's role in the appeal unclear.
Could there be fresh indictments?
The government charged Comey with making false statements to lawmakers and obstructing justice. Federal prosecutors charged Letitia James with bank fraud and making false statements to a bank.
Both pleaded not guilty. In addition to claiming Halligan's appointment was invalid, they also claimed to be victims of vindictive prosecution.
Since the initial charges were dismissed (although appeals might alter this), the DOJ might try to assemble new grand juries and secure new indictments.
As far as everything I've seen, a new prosecutor 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 complex process – especially in Comey's case.
It's clear that it will be hotly contested, whether Comey's case can be re-indicted if a properly assigned attorney is assigned and is able to secure an indictment.
He characterized the complex web of attorneys, judges, and motions involved as a procedural morass with no simple answers.
It might be harder for the government to try to bring the identical accusations against Comey.
A key issue is the statute of limitations – the time frame that government lawyers had to charge Comey for these particular claims – which expired at the end of September. However, the indictment's dismissal would trigger a half-year extension for the justice department to bring the case again.
Still in that case, his lawyers said it plans to contend the government is out of time.
The ruling also suggests that because the charge is invalid, the time limit has run and there can be no new indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said on Monday.
What is the fate of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?
In both decisions on the charges against Comey and James, the judge was blunt: Halligan's appointment was improper.
The judge stated in the James decision that the Attorney General's attempt to appoint Halligan as Interim US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was unlawful.
Therefore, she lacked legal power to present the indictment, the judge wrote.
Federal prosecutors are nominated by the president and need Senate approval. US laws govern how people can be appointed on a interim basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's assignment had breached these laws.
That leaves Halligan's position on subsequent cases against both individuals, once more, unclear.
The decision might also raise doubts on other cases Halligan has brought in the Virginia Eastern District where she works.
But Bondi said on Monday that she designated Halligan a special US attorney and commended her work as outstanding.
The administration maintained its position that Halligan's appointment was legal, press secretary Karoline Leavitt told the press on Monday.
