The Future in the James Comey and James Court Battles?

A pair of high-profile opponents of former President Trump secured significant legal victories on Monday when a US judge threw out the federal indictments against them.

Over recent weeks following their charges, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have maintained fiercely that they are innocent, claiming that the president and justice department are simply targeting them for retaliation.

US District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges in their cases due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's improper assignment as US attorney. But she also left open the possibility for the federal authorities to try again.

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

Comey acknowledged that possibility after the decision, stating he thinks 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 confronts significant hurdles to effectively try either after this defeat, and experts are reluctant to predict what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

In my view, it's unexplored legal ground, stated Professor Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Could the justice department appeal?

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

US Attorney General Pam Bondi signaled she would take this route, vowing to use all legal means, including an expedited appeal.

Previously, the Trump administration has strongly challenged adverse decisions, moving cases from trial courts and sometimes accelerating its petitions up to the US Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, vowed to keep fighting any additional politically motivated charges through every lawful means available.

If there is an appeals process, the DOJ probably would have its own attorneys present the arguments, making Halligan's involvement in the appeal uncertain.

Could there be new charges?

The government accused James Comey with lying to lawmakers and obstructing justice. Government lawyers indicted Letitia James with financial fraud and making false statements to a bank.

Both pleaded not guilty. In addition to arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also asserted to be victims of retaliatory legal action.

Since the initial charges were dismissed (although appeals might alter this), the government might try to convene new grand juries and obtain new charges.

Based on my analysis, a different attorney could present James's case to a different grand jury and get a new indictment, stated Ms Levine.

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

I can tell you it will be strongly disputed, whether Mr Comey's case can be recharged if a properly assigned attorney is assigned and is can obtain an indictment.

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

It might be harder for the government to try to bring the exact same charges against James Comey.

A key issue is the legal time limit – the deadline that prosecutors had to charge Comey for these specific allegations – which expired at the end of September. Nonetheless, the dismissal of the charges would activate a half-year extension for the justice department to refile the case.

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

The decision further indicates that since the charge is invalid, the statute of limitations has run and there can be no further indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings on the charges against Comey and James, Judge Currie was blunt: Halligan's appointment was improper.

The judge stated in the James decision that the AG's effort to install Ms. Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was unlawful.

Therefore, Halligan lacked legal power to present the indictment, she wrote.

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

This makes Halligan's role on future cases against James and Comey, again, uncertain.

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

But Attorney General Bondi said on Monday that she made Halligan a special federal prosecutor and praised her work as outstanding.

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