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

Two prominent critics of President Trump obtained significant court wins on Monday when a federal judge dismissed the government's charges filed against them.

Over recent weeks since their indictments, former FBI Director James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have insisted fiercely that they are innocent, claiming that the president and justice department are simply singling out them for revenge.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges in their cases due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's invalid assignment as federal prosecutor. However, she left the door open for the federal authorities to refile the case.

• Court throws out cases against ex-FBI director Comey and New York AG James
• US judge says government 'missteps' may have compromised the Comey trial
• What are former FBI head James Comey charged with?

Comey acknowledged that likelihood after the ruling, saying he thinks 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 effectively try either after this defeat, and legal analysts are reluctant to forecast what could occur next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

It feels to me like uncharted territory, stated Professor Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Might the justice department 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 Court of Appeals.

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

In other cases, the Trump administration has strongly challenged unfavourable rulings, taking cases from lower courts and sometimes accelerating its requests up to the Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, pledged to continue to challenge any further politically motivated charges through every lawful means available.

If there is an appeal, the justice department likely would have its own lawyers argue the case, making Halligan's role in the appeal uncertain.

Is it possible there be new charges?

The government charged James Comey with lying to lawmakers and obstructing justice. Federal prosecutors indicted Letitia James with bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

Each pleaded not guilty. In addition to claiming Halligan's appointment was invalid, both also asserted to be victims of retaliatory legal action.

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

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

But John Day, head of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complicated path – certainly in the Comey matter.

It's clear that it will be strongly disputed, whether Comey's case can be re-indicted if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is appointed and is able to secure an charge.

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

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

One problem is the legal time limit – the deadline that government lawyers had to charge Comey for these particular claims – which ended at the end of September. Nonetheless, the indictment's dismissal would trigger a half-year extension for the justice department to refile the case.

Even so in that situation, his lawyers said it plans to argue the prosecution is past the deadline.

The decision further indicates that since the charge 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 both decisions on the indictments against James and Comey, Judge Currie was direct: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

The judge stated in the James decision that the AG's effort to install Halligan as Interim US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was invalid.

Therefore, Halligan had no lawful authority to present the indictment, the judge wrote.

Federal prosecutors are proposed by the US president and need Senate approval. US laws regulate how people can be assigned on a temporary basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's appointment had violated these regulations.

That leaves Halligan's position on subsequent cases against James and Comey, once more, unclear.

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

But Bondi said on that day that she designated Halligan a special federal prosecutor and praised her work as outstanding.

The White House stood by its stance that Halligan was lawfully appointed, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.