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

Two well-known opponents of former President Trump secured major court wins on the start of the week when a federal judge threw out the federal indictments against them.

For weeks following their charges, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have maintained vehemently that they are innocent, claiming that the president and justice department are simply singling out them for revenge.

US District Judge Cameron Currie tossed the indictments against them due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's improper assignment as federal prosecutor. However, she left the door open for the federal authorities to try again.

• Judge dismisses cases against former FBI chief Comey and New York AG James
• Federal judge states DOJ errors may have tainted the Comey trial
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey accused of?

Comey acknowledged that likelihood after the ruling, saying he thinks Trump will probably target him again.

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

But the DOJ confronts significant obstacles to successfully prosecute either after this setback, and experts are reluctant to predict what could occur next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

It feels to me like uncharted territory, said Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Might the justice department appeal?

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

US Attorney General Pam Bondi indicated she would take this route, pledging to use all available legal action, including an immediate appeal.

Previously, the Trump administration has strongly challenged unfavourable rulings, taking cases from trial courts and sometimes accelerating its petitions up to the US Supreme Court.

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

If there is an appeal, the DOJ probably would have its own lawyers present the arguments, making Halligan's role in the appeals process unclear.

Could there be new charges?

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

Each pleaded not guilty. In addition to arguing Halligan's appointment was invalid, they also claimed 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 secure new charges.

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

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

I can tell you it will be hotly contested, whether Mr Comey's case can be recharged if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is assigned and is can obtain an charge.

He described the complex web of lawyers, courts, and motions involved as a legal quagmire with no simple answers.

It could be more difficult for the DOJ to try to bring the identical accusations against James Comey.

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the deadline that prosecutors had to charge him for these specific allegations – which ended at the close of September. However, the indictment's dismissal would trigger a six-month grace period for the justice department to refile the case.

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

The decision further indicates that because the indictment is invalid, the statute of limitations has run and there can be no new indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said on Monday.

What is the fate of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the charges against Comey and James, Judge Currie was blunt: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

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

As a result, Halligan lacked legal power to present the indictment, the judge wrote.

US attorneys are proposed by the US president and require Senate approval. US laws govern how people can be assigned on a interim basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's assignment had violated these regulations.

That leaves Halligan's role on future cases against both individuals, once more, unclear.

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

But Bondi said on that day that she made Halligan a special federal prosecutor and commended her work as excellent.

The White House maintained its position that Halligan was lawfully appointed, press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.