What Lies Ahead in the Comey and James Court Battles?

Two high-profile critics of President Trump secured significant court wins on Monday when a federal judge dismissed the government's charges against them.

For weeks since their indictments, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have maintained vehemently that they are not guilty, asserting that the administration and DOJ are merely targeting them for retaliation.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges against them due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's invalid appointment as US attorney. But she also left the door open for the government to refile the case.

• Court throws out cases against ex-FBI director Comey and NY attorney general James
• US judge says government 'missteps' may have compromised Comey case
• What are former FBI head James Comey accused of?

Comey acknowledged that likelihood after the ruling, stating he thinks the former president is likely to target him again.

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This will not be the final word on this matter.

But the government faces significant obstacles to successfully prosecute either after this defeat, and experts hesitate to forecast what could happen next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

In my view, it's unexplored legal ground, stated Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Might the DOJ challenge the ruling?

The DOJ can challenge Judge Currie's ruling before a higher appeals court. In this instance, that would be the Fourth Circuit Appeals Court.

Attorney General Pam Bondi signaled she would pursue this option, pledging to use all legal means, including an expedited appeal.

In other cases, the former administration has strongly challenged unfavourable rulings, taking cases from lower courts and sometimes accelerating its requests up to the US Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, pledged to continue to challenge any additional politically driven indictments through all legal avenues.

In the event of an appeals process, the justice department likely would have its own lawyers argue the case, making Halligan's role in the appeals process unclear.

Is it possible there be new charges?

The government accused Comey with making false statements to Congress and obstruction of justice. Government lawyers indicted Letitia James with bank fraud and providing false information to a bank.

Each pleaded not guilty. In addition to arguing Halligan's appointment was invalid, both also claimed to be targets of retaliatory legal action.

With the original indictments thrown out (although appeals might alter this), the government might try to assemble new grand juries and secure new charges.

As far as everything I've seen, a new prosecutor could bring James' case to a different grand jury and secure a new indictment, stated Professor Levine.

But John Day, president 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 lawfully appointed prosecutor is appointed and is can obtain an indictment.

He characterized the tangle of lawyers, courts, and motions involved as a procedural morass with no simple answers.

It could be more difficult for the DOJ to try to bring the identical accusations against James Comey.

One problem is the statute of limitations – the time frame that prosecutors had to indict him for these specific allegations – which expired at the close of September. Nonetheless, the indictment's dismissal would trigger a half-year extension for the justice department to bring the case again.

Still in that situation, his legal team said it plans to argue the prosecution is out of time.

The decision further indicates that since the indictment is invalid, the time limit has expired and there can be no further indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said on Monday.

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings on the charges against Comey and James, the judge was direct: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

The judge stated in the James ruling that the Attorney General's attempt to install Ms. Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was unlawful.

As a result, she had no lawful authority to file the charges, the judge wrote.

US attorneys are proposed by the US president and need US Senate confirmation. Federal statutes regulate how individuals can be appointed on a temporary basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's assignment had violated these regulations.

That leaves Halligan's role on future cases against both individuals, again, uncertain.

The ruling also could cast a shadow on any other cases Halligan has prosecuted in the Eastern District of Virginia where she serves.

But Bondi said on Monday that she designated her a special federal prosecutor and commended her work as outstanding.

The administration stood by its stance that Halligan's appointment was legal, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told the press on Monday.