What's Next in the James Comey and Letitia James Court Battles?

A pair of well-known critics of former President Trump secured major legal victories on the start of the week when a federal judge threw out the federal indictments filed against them.

Over recent weeks since their indictments, former FBI Director James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have argued fiercely that they are innocent, asserting that the administration and DOJ are simply singling out them for retaliation.

US District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges in their cases due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's invalid appointment as US attorney. However, she left the door open for the federal authorities to try again.

• Judge dismisses charges against ex-FBI director Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states DOJ errors may have tainted Comey case
• What is ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

Comey admitted that possibility after the ruling, saying he thinks the former president is likely to target him once more.

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

But the DOJ faces steep hurdles to effectively try either after this defeat, and experts hesitate to predict what could happen next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

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

Could the justice department challenge the ruling?

The Department of Justice can challenge Judge Currie's ruling before a federal appeals court. In this case, that would be the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

US Attorney General Pam Bondi indicated she would take this route, vowing to use all available legal action, including an expedited appeal.

In other cases, the Trump administration has strongly challenged adverse decisions, moving cases from lower courts and sometimes accelerating its petitions up to the Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, vowed to keep fighting any further politically motivated charges through every lawful means available.

In the event of an appeal, the justice department likely would have its own lawyers present the arguments, making Halligan's involvement in the appeal uncertain.

Is it possible there be new charges?

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 pleaded not guilty. In addition to arguing Halligan's appointment was invalid, both also asserted to be victims of retaliatory legal action.

With the original indictments thrown out (although appeals might alter this), the government might try to assemble fresh grand juries and secure new charges.

Based on my analysis, a new prosecutor could bring James' case to a new grand jury and get a new indictment, said Ms 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 strongly disputed, whether Comey's case can be recharged if a properly assigned attorney is appointed and is can obtain an charge.

He described the complex web of lawyers, courts, and motions involved as a legal quagmire with no easy solutions.

It could be harder for the government to try to file the exact same charges against Comey.

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the time frame that government lawyers had to indict Comey for these specific allegations – which ended at the close of September. Nonetheless, the indictment's dismissal would trigger a six-month grace period for the DOJ to bring the case again.

Still in that situation, his lawyers said it plans to contend the government is out of time.

The ruling also suggests that since the charge is void, the statute of limitations has run and there can be no further indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What happens to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

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

Judge Currie wrote in the James decision that the AG's effort to install Ms. Halligan as Interim US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was unlawful.

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

US attorneys are nominated by the US president and require Senate approval. Federal statutes govern how people can be assigned on a temporary basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's appointment had breached these laws.

This makes Halligan's role on subsequent cases against James and Comey, again, uncertain.

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

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

The White House stood by its stance that Halligan was lawfully appointed, press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.