What Lies Ahead in the Comey and Letitia James Court Battles?

Two high-profile critics of former President Trump achieved significant court wins on the start of the week when a federal judge threw out the government's charges filed 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, claiming that the president and justice department are merely singling out them for revenge.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges in their cases due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's improper appointment as federal prosecutor. But she also left open the possibility for the government to try again.

• Court throws out charges against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have tainted the Comey trial
• What is former FBI head James Comey charged with?

Comey admitted that likelihood after the ruling, saying he thinks Trump will probably target him once more.

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This isn't the final word on this issue.

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

It feels to me like unexplored legal ground, said Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Could the justice department appeal?

The DOJ can challenge the judge's decision 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, pledging to use all available legal action, including an immediate appeal.

In other cases, the Trump administration has strongly challenged unfavourable rulings, moving cases from lower courts and sometimes accelerating its requests up to the US Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, pledged to keep fighting any additional politically motivated charges through all legal avenues.

In the event of an appeal, the DOJ probably would have its own lawyers present the arguments, making Halligan's involvement in the appeal unclear.

Could there be new charges?

The federal prosecutors accused Comey with lying to Congress and obstructing justice. Government lawyers charged James with bank fraud and providing false information to a financial institution.

Each entered not guilty pleas. In addition to claiming Halligan was unlawfully appointed, they also asserted to be targets of retaliatory legal action.

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

As far as everything I've seen, a different attorney could bring James' case to a different grand jury and secure a new indictment, stated Ms Levine.

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

I can tell you it will be hotly contested, whether Comey's case can be recharged if a properly assigned attorney is appointed and is can obtain an indictment.

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

It could be more difficult for the DOJ to try to file the identical accusations against James Comey.

One problem is the statute of limitations – the deadline that government lawyers had to charge Comey for these particular claims – which expired at the end of September. However, the dismissal of the charges would trigger a six-month grace period for the justice department to refile the case.

Even so in that case, his lawyers said it intends to contend the government is out of time.

The decision further indicates that since the indictment is invalid, the time limit has expired and there can be no new indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said on Monday.

What is the fate of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings on the charges against James and Comey, the judge was blunt: Halligan's appointment was improper.

Judge Currie wrote in the James decision that the AG's effort to install 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 proposed by the president and require Senate approval. Federal statutes govern how individuals can be assigned on a temporary basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's assignment had violated these regulations.

That leaves Halligan's position on future cases against James and Comey, once more, uncertain.

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

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

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