What Lies Ahead in the Comey and James Court Battles?

Two well-known opponents of former President Trump secured significant court wins on the start of the week when a US judge threw out the government's charges filed against them.

Over recent weeks since their indictments, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have maintained fiercely that they are innocent, claiming that the administration and DOJ are simply singling out them for retaliation.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the indictments in their cases due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's improper appointment as US attorney. However, she left open the possibility for the government to refile the case.

• Judge dismisses cases against ex-FBI director Comey and New York AG James
• Federal judge states DOJ errors may have tainted Comey case
• What is former FBI head James Comey charged with?

Comey admitted that possibility after the ruling, saying he thinks Trump is likely to target him again.

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This will not be the last chapter on this matter.

But the DOJ faces steep hurdles to successfully prosecute either after this defeat, and legal analysts hesitate to predict what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

It feels to me like uncharted territory, said Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Could the justice department challenge the ruling?

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

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

Previously, the Trump administration has aggressively appealed adverse decisions, taking cases from lower courts and sometimes accelerating its petitions up to the Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, pledged to continue to challenge any additional politically motivated charges through all legal avenues.

In the event of an appeals process, the DOJ likely would have its own lawyers argue the case, making Halligan's involvement in the appeals process uncertain.

Is it possible there be fresh indictments?

The federal prosecutors charged James Comey with lying to Congress and obstructing justice. Government lawyers charged Letitia James with bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

Both entered not guilty pleas. Besides arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also asserted to be targets of vindictive prosecution.

Since the initial charges were dismissed (although appeals might alter this), the DOJ might try to assemble fresh grand juries and obtain new indictments.

As far as everything I've seen, a different attorney could present James's case to a different grand jury and get a new indictment, said Professor Levine.

But legal expert John Day, president of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complicated path – certainly in Comey's case.

It's clear that it will be strongly disputed, whether Comey's case can be re-indicted if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is appointed and is can obtain an charge.

He characterized the tangle of attorneys, judges, and legal filings involved as a procedural morass with no easy solutions.

It could be more difficult for the government to try to file the exact same charges against James Comey.

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the deadline that government lawyers had to indict Comey for these particular claims – which expired at the end of September. Nonetheless, the dismissal of the charges would trigger a six-month grace period for the DOJ to bring the case again.

Even so in that case, his legal team said it plans to contend the government is out of time.

The ruling also suggests that since the indictment is void, the statute of limitations has expired and there can be no further indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the indictments against Comey and James, Judge Currie was direct: Halligan's appointment was improper.

The judge stated in the James decision that the AG's effort to install 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.

Federal prosecutors are nominated by the US president and require Senate approval. Federal statutes govern how individuals can be appointed on a interim basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's assignment had breached these laws.

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

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

But Bondi said on Monday that she made her a special US attorney and commended her work as outstanding.

The White House maintained its position that Halligan's appointment was legal, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told the press on Monday.