What Lies Ahead in the Comey and James Legal Cases?

A pair of well-known critics of former President Trump secured major court wins on Monday when a federal judge threw out the government's charges filed against them.

Over recent weeks since their indictments, ex-FBI chief James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have maintained vehemently that they are not guilty, asserting that the administration and DOJ are simply singling out them for revenge.

US District Judge Cameron Currie tossed the charges in their cases due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's invalid appointment as federal prosecutor. But she also left the door open for the government to try again.

• Judge dismisses charges against ex-FBI director Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have tainted Comey case
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

Comey admitted that likelihood after the ruling, saying he believes Trump is likely to come after him again.

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

But the DOJ faces steep 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.

It feels to me like unexplored legal ground, said Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Might the DOJ appeal?

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

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

In other cases, the Trump administration has strongly challenged unfavourable rulings, taking cases from lower 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 all legal avenues.

If there is an appeals process, the justice department probably would have its own lawyers argue the case, making Halligan's role in the appeals process unclear.

Could there be fresh indictments?

The government accused Comey with making false statements to lawmakers and obstruction of justice. Federal prosecutors indicted Letitia James with financial fraud and providing false information to a financial institution.

Each pleaded not guilty. In addition to claiming Halligan was unlawfully appointed, they also claimed to be targets of vindictive prosecution.

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

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

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

He characterized the complex web of lawyers, courts, and legal filings involved as a procedural morass with no easy solutions.

It could be harder for the government to try to file the exact same charges against Comey.

A key issue is the legal time limit – the deadline that prosecutors had to charge Comey for these specific allegations – which ended at the end of September. However, the indictment's dismissal would trigger a six-month grace period for the DOJ to bring the case again.

Even so in that situation, his legal team said it plans to contend the prosecution is past the deadline.

The ruling also suggests that because the indictment is void, the time limit has run and there can be no further indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

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

Judge Currie wrote in the James ruling that the Attorney General's attempt to appoint Ms. Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was invalid.

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

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

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

The decision might also cast a shadow on any other cases Halligan has brought in the Virginia Eastern District where she serves.

But Attorney General Bondi said on Monday that she designated her a special US attorney and commended her work as excellent.

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