What Lies Ahead in the James Comey and James Legal Cases?

A pair of prominent critics of President Trump secured major legal victories on Monday when a US judge dismissed the federal indictments against them.

For weeks following their charges, ex-FBI chief James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have argued vehemently that they are not guilty, asserting that the president and justice department are simply targeting them for revenge.

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

• Judge dismisses cases against ex-FBI director Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states DOJ errors may have compromised the Comey trial
• What is former FBI head James Comey accused of?

Comey admitted that possibility after the ruling, stating he thinks the former president will probably target him once more.

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

But the DOJ faces steep obstacles to successfully prosecute both after this setback, and legal analysts are reluctant to forecast what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

It feels to me like uncharted territory, said Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Could the justice department challenge the ruling?

The DOJ can challenge 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 take this route, vowing to use all legal means, including an immediate appeal.

Previously, the former administration has strongly challenged unfavourable rulings, moving cases from lower courts and sometimes accelerating its petitions up to the US Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, pledged to continue to challenge any further politically driven indictments through every lawful means available.

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

Is it possible there be new charges?

The government accused Comey with making false statements to lawmakers and obstruction of justice. Federal prosecutors indicted Letitia James with financial fraud and providing false information to a financial institution.

Each pleaded not guilty. Besides arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also claimed to be targets of vindictive prosecution.

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

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

But legal expert John Day, head of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complicated path – especially in the Comey matter.

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

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

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

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the deadline that prosecutors had to indict Comey for these particular claims – which ended at the close of September. However, the dismissal of the charges would activate a half-year extension for the DOJ to bring the case again.

Even so in that situation, his lawyers said it plans to contend the government is past the deadline.

The decision further indicates that because the charge is void, the time limit has run and there can be no further indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What happens to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

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

Judge Currie wrote in the James ruling that the Attorney General's attempt to install Ms. Halligan as Interim US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was invalid.

As a result, Halligan had no lawful authority to file the charges, the judge wrote.

US attorneys are nominated by the president and require Senate approval. US laws regulate how people can be appointed on a interim basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's assignment had breached these regulations.

That leaves Halligan's position on future cases against both individuals, once more, unclear.

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

But Bondi said on Monday that she made her a special federal prosecutor and praised her work as excellent.

The administration maintained its position that Halligan's appointment was legal, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.