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

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

Over recent weeks following their charges, ex-FBI chief James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have insisted fiercely that they are innocent, asserting that the administration and DOJ are simply singling out them for revenge.

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

• Judge dismisses charges against former FBI chief Comey and New York AG James
• Federal judge states DOJ errors may have compromised the Comey trial
• What are former FBI head James Comey charged with?

Comey acknowledged that likelihood after the decision, saying he thinks the former president is likely to target him once more.

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

But the DOJ confronts significant hurdles to successfully prosecute either after this defeat, and experts are reluctant to forecast what could happen next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

In my view, it's uncharted territory, stated Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Might the DOJ challenge the ruling?

The Department of Justice can challenge Judge Currie's ruling before a higher 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 expedited appeal.

Previously, the former administration has strongly challenged adverse decisions, moving cases from trial courts and sometimes fast-tracking its petitions up to the Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, pledged to continue to challenge any additional 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 involvement in the appeals process uncertain.

Is it possible there be fresh indictments?

The federal prosecutors accused James Comey with making false statements to lawmakers and obstructing justice. Federal prosecutors charged Letitia James with financial fraud and providing false information to a financial institution.

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

With the original indictments thrown out (although appeals might alter this), the government might try to convene fresh grand juries and obtain new charges.

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

But John Day, president of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complex process – certainly in the Comey matter.

I can tell you it will be strongly disputed, whether Comey's case can be recharged if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is appointed and is can obtain an indictment.

He characterized the tangle of attorneys, judges, and motions involved as a procedural morass with no simple answers.

It could be more difficult for the government to try to file the identical accusations against James Comey.

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the deadline that prosecutors had to charge him for these particular claims – which expired at the end of September. Nonetheless, the indictment's dismissal would trigger a half-year extension for the justice department to refile the case.

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

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

What happens to prosecutor 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 ruling that the AG's effort to install Halligan as Interim US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was invalid.

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

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

That leaves Halligan's position on subsequent cases against James and Comey, again, uncertain.

The ruling also could raise doubts on any other cases Halligan has prosecuted in the Virginia Eastern District where she works.

But Bondi said on that day that she designated Halligan a special US attorney and commended her work as excellent.

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