Two high-profile critics of President Trump achieved significant court wins on Monday when a US judge dismissed the government's charges against them.
For weeks since their indictments, ex-FBI chief James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have maintained vehemently that they are not guilty, claiming that the president and justice department are simply singling out them for retaliation.
US District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the indictments against them due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's improper appointment as US attorney. But she also left open the possibility for the federal authorities to refile the case.
- Judge dismisses charges against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
- US judge says DOJ errors may have tainted the Comey trial
- What is former FBI head James Comey charged with?
Comey admitted that likelihood after the decision, saying he thinks Trump will probably come after him once more.
And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This will not be the last chapter on this issue.
But the DOJ faces steep hurdles to effectively try both after this defeat, and experts hesitate to predict what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.
It feels to me like unexplored legal ground, stated Professor Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.
Might the justice department challenge the ruling?
The DOJ can contest Judge Currie's ruling before a higher appeals court. In this case, that would be the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.
US Attorney General Pam Bondi indicated she would pursue this option, pledging to use all legal means, including an immediate appeal.
In other cases, the former administration has strongly challenged unfavourable rulings, moving cases from trial courts and sometimes fast-tracking its petitions up to the Supreme Court.
Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, pledged to keep fighting any additional politically driven indictments through every lawful means available.
In the event of an appeal, the DOJ likely would have its own lawyers argue the case, making Halligan's involvement in the appeals process unclear.
Could there be new charges?
The federal prosecutors accused James Comey with making false statements to Congress and obstruction of justice. Government lawyers indicted James with bank fraud and providing false information to a bank.
Each entered not guilty pleas. Besides arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, they also claimed to be victims of vindictive prosecution.
With the original indictments thrown out (though, of course, appeals could change that), the DOJ might try to assemble fresh grand juries and obtain new charges.
As far as everything I've seen, a new prosecutor could present James's case to a new grand jury and get a fresh indictment, stated Professor Levine.
But legal expert John Day, president 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 Mr Comey's case can be re-indicted if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is appointed and is can obtain an charge.
He described the tangle of attorneys, judges, and legal filings involved as a legal quagmire with no easy solutions.
It could be harder for the DOJ to try to bring the identical accusations against Comey.
One problem is the statute of limitations – the time frame that government lawyers had to indict Comey for these particular claims – which ended at the close of September. Nonetheless, the dismissal of the charges would activate a half-year extension for the DOJ to refile the case.
Still in that case, his lawyers said it intends to contend the government is out of time.
The decision further indicates that since the charge is void, the time limit has run and there can be no further indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said on Monday.
What happens to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?
In the pair of rulings on the charges against James and Comey, the judge was direct: Halligan's appointment was improper.
The judge stated in the James ruling that the AG's effort to install Ms. Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was invalid.
Therefore, Halligan had no lawful authority to present the indictment, she wrote.
US attorneys are proposed by the president and need US Senate confirmation. US laws regulate how individuals can be appointed on a temporary basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's assignment had breached these regulations.
This makes Halligan's role on future cases against both individuals, once more, unclear.
The ruling also could raise doubts on other cases Halligan has brought in the Eastern District of Virginia where she works.
But Bondi said on that day 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 reporters on Monday.
