The Future in the Comey and James Legal Cases?

A pair of high-profile critics of former President Trump secured major legal victories on Monday when a federal judge threw out the government's charges filed against them.

Over recent weeks since their indictments, ex-FBI chief James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have insisted fiercely that they are not guilty, claiming that the president and justice department are merely singling out them for revenge.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie tossed the charges in their cases due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's invalid assignment as US attorney. However, she left open the possibility for the government to refile the case.

• Judge dismisses charges against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have tainted Comey case
• What is former FBI head James Comey charged with?

Comey acknowledged that likelihood after the ruling, saying he believes Trump is likely to target him once more.

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This isn't the final word on this matter.

But the government confronts steep hurdles to effectively try both after this defeat, and legal analysts are reluctant to forecast what could happen next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

In my view, it's unexplored legal ground, said Professor Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Might the justice department appeal?

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

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

In other cases, the Trump administration has strongly challenged adverse decisions, moving cases from trial courts and sometimes accelerating its petitions up to the US Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, pledged to keep fighting any additional politically motivated charges through every lawful means available.

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

Could there be fresh indictments?

The government charged Comey with lying to lawmakers and obstruction of justice. Government lawyers indicted Letitia James with bank fraud and providing false information to a financial institution.

Both entered not guilty pleas. In addition to claiming Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also asserted to be targets of vindictive prosecution.

Since the initial charges were dismissed (although appeals might alter this), the government might try to assemble fresh grand juries and secure new charges.

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

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

I can tell you it will be strongly disputed, whether Mr Comey's case can be re-indicted if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is assigned and is can obtain an charge.

He described the complex web of attorneys, courts, 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 Comey.

One problem is the statute of limitations – the time frame that government lawyers had to indict Comey for these specific allegations – which expired at the end of September. Nonetheless, the indictment's dismissal would trigger a six-month grace period for the justice department to bring the case again.

Even so in that case, his legal team said it intends to contend the prosecution is past the deadline.

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

What is the fate of Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the charges against James and Comey, the judge was blunt: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

The judge stated in the James ruling that the Attorney General's attempt to appoint Halligan as Interim US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was invalid.

As a result, she had no lawful authority to present the indictment, the judge wrote.

US attorneys are nominated by the president and require Senate approval. US laws govern how people can be appointed on a temporary basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's appointment had breached these laws.

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

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

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

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