What's Next in the Comey and Letitia James Legal Cases?

A pair of prominent critics of President Trump achieved significant court wins on Monday when a US judge dismissed the government's charges filed against them.

Over recent weeks since their indictments, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have argued fiercely that they are innocent, asserting that the president and justice department are simply targeting them for revenge.

US District Judge Cameron Currie tossed the indictments against them due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's invalid appointment as US attorney. But she also left the door open for the government to try again.

• Court throws out cases against ex-FBI director Comey and New York AG James
• US judge says DOJ errors may have tainted the Comey trial
• What is former FBI head James Comey accused of?

Comey admitted that likelihood after the ruling, saying he thinks the former president is likely to come after him once more.

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This will not be the final word on this matter.

But the government faces significant hurdles to effectively try either after this defeat, and legal analysts hesitate to predict what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

In my view, it's unexplored legal ground, stated Professor Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Could the DOJ challenge the ruling?

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

US Attorney General Pam Bondi signaled she would pursue this option, pledging to use all legal means, including an immediate appeal.

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

Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, vowed to keep fighting any further politically motivated charges through all legal avenues.

In the event of an appeal, the DOJ likely would have its own attorneys argue the case, making Halligan's involvement in the appeals process unclear.

Is it possible there be fresh indictments?

The federal prosecutors accused Comey with lying to lawmakers and obstruction of justice. Federal prosecutors indicted James with bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

Each entered not guilty pleas. Besides claiming Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also claimed to be targets of retaliatory legal action.

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

Based on my analysis, a new prosecutor could present James's case to a different grand jury and secure a new indictment, said Ms Levine.

But legal expert John Day, head of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complex process – especially in the Comey matter.

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 able to secure an charge.

He characterized the complex web of attorneys, judges, and motions involved as a legal quagmire with no easy solutions.

It might be harder for the DOJ to try to file the identical accusations against Comey.

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the deadline that prosecutors had to charge Comey for these particular claims – which ended at the close of September. Nonetheless, the indictment's dismissal would activate a half-year extension for the DOJ to bring the case again.

Still in that case, his legal team said it plans to argue the prosecution is past the deadline.

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

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the charges against Comey and James, the judge was direct: Halligan's appointment was improper.

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

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

US attorneys are nominated by the US president and require US Senate confirmation. Federal statutes regulate how individuals can be appointed on a temporary basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's appointment had violated these regulations.

This makes Halligan's position on subsequent cases against James and Comey, again, unclear.

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

But Attorney General Bondi said on Monday that she designated Halligan a special US attorney and praised her work as outstanding.

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