What's Next in the Comey and Letitia James Court Battles?

Two well-known opponents of President Trump achieved significant legal victories 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 argued vehemently that they are not guilty, asserting that the administration and DOJ are merely targeting them for revenge.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the indictments in their cases due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's invalid assignment as US attorney. But she also left open the possibility for the government to try again.

• Judge dismisses charges against ex-FBI director Comey and New York AG James
• US judge says DOJ errors may have tainted the Comey trial
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

Comey acknowledged that possibility after the ruling, saying he thinks the former president is likely to target him once more.

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This will not be the last chapter on this issue.

But the DOJ faces significant obstacles to effectively try either after this setback, and legal analysts hesitate to forecast what could occur next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

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

Could the DOJ appeal?

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

Attorney General Pam Bondi signaled she would pursue this option, vowing to use all available legal action, including an immediate appeal.

Previously, the former administration has aggressively appealed unfavourable rulings, taking cases from lower courts and sometimes fast-tracking its petitions up to the Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, pledged to continue to challenge any further politically driven indictments through every lawful means available.

In the event of an appeal, the justice department probably would have its own lawyers present the arguments, making Halligan's role in the appeal unclear.

Is it possible there be new charges?

The government charged Comey with making false statements to lawmakers and obstructing justice. Federal prosecutors indicted James with financial fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

Both pleaded not guilty. In addition to claiming Halligan was unlawfully appointed, they also asserted to be targets of retaliatory legal action.

Since the initial charges were dismissed (though, of course, appeals could change that), the government might try to convene new grand juries and obtain new charges.

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

But legal expert John Day, head of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complicated path – 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 described the tangle of lawyers, judges, and legal filings involved as a legal quagmire with no easy solutions.

It might be harder for the DOJ to try to file the exact same charges against James Comey.

One problem is the legal time limit – the time frame that government lawyers had to indict Comey for these particular claims – which ended at the close of September. However, the dismissal of the charges would activate a six-month grace period for the DOJ to refile the case.

Even so in that case, his lawyers said it plans to contend the prosecution is past the deadline.

The decision further indicates that because the charge is void, the time limit has expired and there can be no further indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said on Monday.

What is the fate of Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings on the indictments against Comey and James, Judge Currie was direct: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

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

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

US attorneys are proposed by the US president and need US Senate confirmation. Federal statutes regulate how people can be appointed on a interim basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's appointment had breached these regulations.

That leaves Halligan's role on subsequent cases against both individuals, again, unclear.

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 designated her a special US attorney and praised her work as excellent.

The administration stood by its stance that Halligan was lawfully appointed, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told the press on Monday.