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

Two high-profile critics of former President Trump secured significant legal victories on Monday when a US judge dismissed the federal indictments against them.

For weeks following their charges, ex-FBI chief James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have insisted fiercely that they are not guilty, asserting that the administration and DOJ are merely singling out them for retaliation.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges against them due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's improper appointment as US attorney. However, she left the door open for the federal authorities to try again.

• Court throws out charges against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have compromised the Comey trial
• What is former FBI head James Comey accused of?

Comey acknowledged that possibility after the ruling, saying he believes the former president is likely to target him again.

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

But the government confronts steep obstacles to effectively try either after this defeat, and experts hesitate to predict what could occur next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

It feels to me like unexplored legal ground, stated 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 Court of Appeals.

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

In other cases, the Trump administration has strongly challenged unfavourable rulings, moving cases from trial courts and sometimes fast-tracking its requests up to the Supreme Court.

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

In the event of an appeals process, the DOJ probably would have its own attorneys present the arguments, making Halligan's involvement in the appeal uncertain.

Is it possible there be fresh indictments?

The government accused James Comey with making false statements to lawmakers and obstruction of justice. Federal prosecutors charged James with financial fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

Each entered not guilty pleas. In addition to arguing Halligan's appointment was invalid, they also claimed to be targets of retaliatory legal action.

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

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

But 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 Mr Comey's case can be re-indicted if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is appointed and is can obtain an indictment.

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

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

One problem is the legal time limit – the time frame that prosecutors had to indict Comey for these specific allegations – which expired at the close of September. Nonetheless, the indictment's dismissal would activate a six-month grace period for the DOJ to bring the case again.

Still in that case, his lawyers said it intends to argue the prosecution is out of time.

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

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

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

Judge Currie wrote in the James ruling that the Attorney General's attempt to appoint Ms. Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was invalid.

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

Federal prosecutors are proposed by the US president and require Senate approval. Federal statutes govern how people can be appointed on a temporary basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's assignment had breached these regulations.

That leaves Halligan's role on future cases against James and Comey, once more, uncertain.

The ruling also could cast a shadow on any other cases Halligan has prosecuted in the Eastern District of Virginia where she works.

But Attorney General Bondi said on that day that she designated her a special federal prosecutor and praised her work as excellent.

The administration maintained its position that Halligan's appointment was legal, press secretary Karoline Leavitt told the press on Monday.