The Future in the Comey and Letitia James Court Battles?

Two well-known opponents of President Trump achieved major legal victories 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 maintained vehemently that they are not guilty, asserting that the president and justice department are simply targeting them for retaliation.

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

• Court throws out cases against ex-FBI director Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states DOJ errors may have tainted the Comey trial
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey accused of?

Comey acknowledged that possibility after the decision, stating he thinks the former president is likely to target him again.

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This isn't the final word on this matter.

But the DOJ faces steep obstacles to effectively try either after this setback, and legal analysts hesitate to predict what could happen next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

In my view, it's uncharted territory, stated Professor Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Could the justice department appeal?

The DOJ can contest the judge's decision before a federal appeals court. In this case, that would be the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

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

In other cases, the former administration has aggressively appealed adverse decisions, taking cases from lower courts and sometimes accelerating its requests up to the US Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, pledged to continue to challenge any further politically driven indictments through all legal avenues.

In the event of an appeals process, the justice department likely would have its own attorneys argue the case, making Halligan's involvement in the appeal unclear.

Is it possible there be fresh indictments?

The government charged Comey with making false statements to Congress and obstructing justice. Government lawyers indicted James with bank fraud and providing false information to a financial institution.

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

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

Based on my analysis, a different attorney could present James's case to a different grand jury and secure a fresh indictment, stated Ms Levine.

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

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

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

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

One problem is the legal time limit – the deadline that government lawyers had to charge Comey for these specific allegations – which ended at the close of September. Nonetheless, the dismissal of the charges would trigger a half-year extension for the justice department to bring the case again.

Still in that case, his legal team said it plans to contend the government is past the deadline.

The decision further indicates that since the charge is invalid, the time limit has run and there can be no new indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What is the fate of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

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

The judge stated in the James decision that the AG's effort to install Ms. Halligan as Interim 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 proposed by the president and need Senate approval. US laws regulate how people can be appointed on a temporary basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's appointment had breached these laws.

This makes Halligan's position on subsequent cases against both individuals, again, unclear.

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

But Bondi said on that day that she made her 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 the press on Monday.