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

A pair of prominent opponents of President Trump achieved major legal victories on the start of the week when a federal judge dismissed the government's charges against them.

For weeks since their indictments, former FBI Director James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have maintained vehemently that they are not guilty, claiming that the president and justice department are merely singling out them for revenge.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges against them due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's invalid appointment as US attorney. But she also left open the possibility for the federal authorities to refile the case.

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

Comey admitted that likelihood after the decision, saying he thinks Trump will probably come after him again.

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This isn't the last chapter on this issue.

But the DOJ faces significant 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.

In my view, it's unexplored legal ground, stated Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Might the justice department challenge the ruling?

The Department of Justice can contest the judge's decision before a federal appeals court. In this instance, 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.

Previously, the former administration has aggressively appealed unfavourable rulings, moving cases from lower courts and sometimes accelerating its requests up to the Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, pledged to keep fighting any further 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 appeal unclear.

Could there be fresh indictments?

The federal prosecutors charged Comey with lying to Congress and obstruction of justice. Federal prosecutors charged Letitia James with bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

Both entered not guilty pleas. In addition to claiming Halligan's appointment was invalid, both also asserted 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 secure new charges.

Based on my analysis, 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 – 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 able to secure an indictment.

He characterized the tangle of attorneys, courts, and motions involved as a legal quagmire with no simple answers.

It might be harder for the government to try to file the identical accusations against Comey.

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the deadline that prosecutors had to charge him for these specific allegations – which expired at the close of September. However, the dismissal of the charges would trigger a six-month grace period for the justice department to refile the case.

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

The decision further indicates that since the indictment is invalid, the statute of limitations has run and there can be no new indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said on Monday.

What happens to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings on the charges against Comey and James, Judge Currie was direct: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

The judge stated in the James ruling that the AG's effort to appoint Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was unlawful.

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

US attorneys are nominated by the president and need US Senate confirmation. US laws govern how people can be appointed on a temporary basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's appointment had breached these regulations.

This makes Halligan's position on future cases against both individuals, again, uncertain.

The decision might also raise doubts on other cases Halligan has prosecuted in the Virginia Eastern District where she works.

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's appointment was legal, press secretary Karoline Leavitt told the press on Monday.