What Lies Ahead in the James Comey and James Court Battles?

Two well-known critics of President Trump obtained significant court wins on Monday when a US judge threw out the federal indictments 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, claiming that the president and justice department are simply targeting them for retaliation.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the indictments against them due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's improper appointment as US attorney. However, she left open the possibility for the government to try again.

• Judge dismisses charges against ex-FBI director Comey and NY attorney general James
• US judge says government 'missteps' may have compromised Comey case
• What are former FBI head James Comey accused of?

Comey acknowledged that possibility after the ruling, stating he thinks the former president will probably come after him once more.

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This will not be the final word on this issue.

But the government faces significant hurdles to successfully prosecute both after this setback, and experts are reluctant to forecast what could occur next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

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

Might the DOJ challenge the ruling?

The DOJ can challenge Judge Currie's ruling before a higher appeals court. In this case, that would be the Fourth Circuit Appeals Court.

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

In other cases, the Trump administration has aggressively appealed unfavourable rulings, taking cases from trial courts and sometimes accelerating its requests up to the US Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, vowed to continue to challenge any additional politically motivated charges through all legal avenues.

If there is an appeals process, the justice department probably would have its own lawyers present the arguments, making Halligan's involvement in the appeals process unclear.

Is it possible there be fresh indictments?

The government accused Comey with making false statements to Congress and obstructing justice. Government lawyers charged James with financial fraud and providing false information to a financial institution.

Both pleaded not guilty. Besides arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also asserted to be targets of vindictive prosecution.

Since the initial charges were dismissed (though, of course, appeals could change that), the DOJ 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 different grand jury and get a fresh indictment, stated Professor Levine.

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

It's clear that it will be strongly disputed, whether Comey's case can be re-indicted if a properly assigned attorney is assigned and is can obtain an charge.

He described the complex web of lawyers, judges, and motions involved as a procedural morass with no simple answers.

It might be more difficult for the DOJ to try to file the identical accusations against James Comey.

A key issue is the legal time limit – the time frame that government lawyers had to charge Comey for these particular claims – which ended at the end of September. Nonetheless, the indictment's dismissal would activate a six-month grace period for the justice department to bring the case again.

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

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

What happens to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

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

Judge Currie wrote in the James decision that the Attorney General's attempt to install Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was unlawful.

As a result, Halligan lacked legal power to file the charges, the judge wrote.

US attorneys are nominated by the president and need Senate approval. US laws govern how individuals can be appointed on a interim basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's appointment had violated these laws.

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

The ruling also could raise doubts on other cases Halligan has brought in the Virginia Eastern District where she serves.

But Bondi said on that day that she made her a special US attorney and commended her work as outstanding.

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