What Lies Ahead in the Comey and James Legal Cases?

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

Over recent weeks following their charges, former FBI Director James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have argued fiercely that they are innocent, asserting that the administration and DOJ are merely targeting them for revenge.

US District Judge Cameron Currie tossed the charges in their cases due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's invalid appointment as US attorney. But she also left the door open for the government to refile the case.

• Judge dismisses charges against ex-FBI director Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have compromised Comey case
• What is former FBI head James Comey accused of?

Comey acknowledged that possibility after the ruling, saying he thinks the former president will probably come after him once more.

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This will not be the final word on this matter.

But the government faces steep obstacles to effectively try both after this setback, and legal analysts hesitate to predict what could occur next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

It feels to me like unexplored legal ground, said Professor Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Might the justice department appeal?

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

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 former administration has aggressively appealed adverse decisions, moving cases from lower courts and sometimes accelerating its petitions up to the Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, vowed to continue to challenge any additional politically driven indictments through all legal avenues.

If there is an appeal, the justice department likely would have its own attorneys present the arguments, making Halligan's role in the appeal unclear.

Is it possible there be new charges?

The government charged Comey with lying to Congress and obstruction of justice. Government lawyers indicted Letitia James with bank fraud and making false statements to a bank.

Each entered not guilty pleas. In addition to arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also claimed to be targets of retaliatory legal action.

Since the initial charges were dismissed (although appeals might alter this), the government might try to assemble new 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 new indictment, said Ms Levine.

But legal expert John Day, head 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 hotly contested, whether Comey's case can be re-indicted if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is assigned and is able to secure an indictment.

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

It could 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 him for these particular claims – which expired at the end of September. Nonetheless, the indictment's dismissal would activate a half-year extension for the DOJ to bring the case again.

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

The ruling also suggests that because the indictment is void, the statute of limitations has run and there can be no new indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said on Monday.

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the indictments 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 install Ms. Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was unlawful.

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

US attorneys are nominated by the president and require Senate approval. US laws govern how individuals can be assigned on a interim basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's appointment had violated these laws.

That leaves Halligan's position on future cases against both individuals, again, uncertain.

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

But Attorney General Bondi said on Monday that she designated her a special federal prosecutor and commended her work as outstanding.

The administration stood by its stance that Halligan was lawfully appointed, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told the press on Monday.