What Lies Ahead in the James Comey and James Legal Cases?

Two high-profile opponents of President Trump achieved major legal victories on the start of the week when a US judge dismissed the government's charges against them.

Over recent weeks since their indictments, ex-FBI chief James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have insisted vehemently that they are innocent, asserting that the president and justice department are simply singling out them for retaliation.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges in their cases due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's invalid appointment as federal prosecutor. However, she left open the possibility for the federal authorities to try again.

• Court throws out cases against ex-FBI director Comey and New York AG James
• US judge says government 'missteps' may have compromised Comey case
• What is former FBI head James Comey accused of?

Comey admitted that likelihood after the decision, stating he believes the former president is likely to target him once more.

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This isn't the final word on this issue.

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

In my view, it's uncharted territory, stated Professor Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Could the DOJ appeal?

The DOJ 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 legal means, including an immediate appeal.

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

Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, vowed to keep fighting any further politically driven indictments through all legal avenues.

In the event of an appeal, the justice department likely would have its own attorneys argue the case, making Halligan's role in the appeal uncertain.

Could there be fresh indictments?

The federal prosecutors accused Comey with making false statements to Congress and obstruction of justice. Government lawyers charged James with bank fraud and providing false information to a financial institution.

Both entered not guilty pleas. In addition to arguing Halligan's appointment was invalid, both also asserted to be victims of retaliatory legal action.

With the original indictments thrown out (though, of course, appeals could change that), the DOJ might try to assemble fresh grand juries and secure new charges.

Based on my analysis, a different attorney could present James's case to a different grand jury and secure 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 – especially in the Comey matter.

It's clear that it will be hotly contested, whether Mr Comey's case can be recharged if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is appointed and is able to secure an indictment.

He characterized the complex web of lawyers, judges, and legal filings involved as a procedural morass with no simple answers.

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

One problem is the statute of limitations – the time frame that government lawyers had to indict Comey for these specific allegations – which expired at the close of September. Nonetheless, the dismissal of the charges would activate a half-year extension for the DOJ to bring the case again.

Still in that case, his lawyers said it intends to argue the government is past the deadline.

The decision further indicates that since the charge is void, the statute of limitations has expired and there can be no new indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What is the fate of Lindsey Halligan?

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

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, Halligan lacked legal power to file the charges, she wrote.

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

That leaves Halligan's position on future cases against James and Comey, once more, uncertain.

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

But Attorney General Bondi said on Monday 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, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told the press on Monday.