The Future in the Comey and James Court Battles?

Two high-profile opponents of former President Trump achieved significant legal victories on Monday when a US judge threw out the federal indictments against them.

For weeks following their charges, former FBI Director James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have argued fiercely that they are not guilty, asserting that the president and justice department are simply singling out them for retaliation.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie tossed the indictments against them due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's invalid appointment as federal prosecutor. However, she left open the possibility for the government to try again.

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

Comey admitted that likelihood after the ruling, stating he believes the former president will probably come after him again.

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

But the DOJ faces significant obstacles to successfully prosecute either after this defeat, and legal analysts hesitate to forecast what could happen next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

In my view, it's uncharted territory, said Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Might the DOJ appeal?

The Department of Justice can contest 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 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 US Supreme Court.

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

In the event of an appeal, the DOJ likely would have its own attorneys argue the case, making Halligan's involvement in the appeal uncertain.

Could there be fresh indictments?

The government charged Comey with lying to lawmakers and obstruction of justice. Federal prosecutors charged Letitia James with bank fraud and providing false information to a bank.

Each entered not guilty pleas. In addition to arguing Halligan's appointment was invalid, they also asserted to be victims of vindictive prosecution.

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

As far as everything I've seen, a new prosecutor could present James's case to a different grand jury and secure 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 – especially in Comey's case.

It's clear that it will be hotly contested, whether Comey's case can be re-indicted if a properly assigned attorney is appointed and is able to secure an indictment.

He described the complex web of lawyers, judges, and legal filings involved as a procedural morass with no simple answers.

It might be more difficult for the DOJ to try to file the exact same charges against Comey.

One problem is the legal time limit – the deadline that prosecutors had to indict Comey for these specific allegations – which expired at the end 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 situation, his lawyers said it intends to contend 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, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said on Monday.

What is the fate of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

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

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

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

Federal prosecutors are nominated by the president and need US Senate confirmation. US laws govern how individuals can be appointed on a temporary basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's assignment had violated these laws.

This makes Halligan's position on future cases against James and Comey, once more, unclear.

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

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

The administration maintained its position that Halligan was lawfully appointed, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.