The Future in the James Comey and Letitia James Trials?

Two prominent opponents of former President Trump obtained major court wins on Monday when a US judge dismissed the federal indictments against them.

For weeks following their charges, former FBI Director James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have maintained vehemently that they are innocent, claiming that the administration and DOJ are simply targeting them for revenge.

US District Judge Cameron Currie tossed the charges in their cases due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's improper appointment as federal prosecutor. But she also left the door open for the federal authorities to try again.

• Judge dismisses cases against ex-FBI director Comey and NY attorney general James
• US judge says DOJ errors may have tainted the Comey trial
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

Comey admitted that possibility after the decision, saying he thinks Trump is likely to come after him again.

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This will not be the final word on this issue.

But the DOJ confronts significant obstacles to successfully prosecute both after this defeat, and experts are reluctant to forecast what could occur 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 DOJ appeal?

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

Attorney General Pam Bondi indicated she would take this route, pledging to use all legal means, including an immediate appeal.

In other cases, the Trump administration has aggressively appealed unfavourable rulings, taking cases from lower 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 all legal avenues.

In the event of an appeal, the justice department likely would have its own lawyers present the arguments, making Halligan's role in the appeals process unclear.

Is it possible there be new charges?

The government accused Comey with lying to lawmakers and obstructing justice. Government lawyers charged James with bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

Both pleaded not guilty. In addition to arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also claimed 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 indictments.

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

But 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 re-indicted if a properly assigned attorney is assigned and is able to secure an indictment.

He described the tangle of attorneys, judges, and legal filings involved as a procedural morass with no easy solutions.

It might be harder 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 charge Comey for these specific allegations – which ended at the end of September. However, the dismissal of the charges would activate a six-month grace period for the justice department to bring the case again.

Still in that situation, his lawyers said it plans to argue the government is past the deadline.

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

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

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

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

Therefore, Halligan had no lawful authority to file the charges, the judge wrote.

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

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

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

But Bondi said on that day that she made Halligan a special US attorney and commended her work as excellent.

The White House stood by its stance that Halligan's appointment was legal, press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.