What's Next in the James Comey and James Trials?

A pair of well-known opponents of President Trump achieved significant court wins on Monday when a federal judge dismissed the federal indictments filed against them.

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

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

• Judge dismisses charges against former FBI chief Comey and New York AG James
• Federal judge states DOJ errors may have compromised the Comey trial
• What is former FBI head James Comey charged with?

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

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This will not be the last chapter on this matter.

But the government confronts significant hurdles to effectively try both after this setback, and legal analysts hesitate to forecast what could occur 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.

Might the DOJ appeal?

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 signaled she would take this route, pledging to use all legal means, including an immediate appeal.

Previously, the former administration has strongly challenged unfavourable rulings, moving cases from trial courts and sometimes fast-tracking its petitions up to the Supreme Court.

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

If there is an appeals process, the justice department likely would have its own lawyers present the arguments, making Halligan's role in the appeal uncertain.

Could there be new charges?

The government accused James Comey with making false statements to lawmakers and obstruction of justice. Federal prosecutors indicted James with bank fraud and making false statements to a bank.

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

Since the initial charges were dismissed (though, of course, appeals could change that), the government might try to convene new grand juries and obtain new charges.

Based on my analysis, a new prosecutor could present James's case to a new grand jury and secure a fresh indictment, stated Ms Levine.

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

I can tell you it will be strongly disputed, whether Comey's case can be re-indicted if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is appointed and is able to secure an charge.

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

It could be harder for the DOJ to try to bring the identical accusations against Comey.

A key issue is the legal time limit – the deadline that government lawyers had to indict Comey for these specific allegations – which expired at the close of September. However, the indictment's dismissal would activate a half-year extension for the justice department to refile the case.

Still in that case, his legal team said it intends to argue the prosecution is out of time.

The ruling also suggests that since 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 prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the indictments against Comey and James, Judge Currie was blunt: Halligan's appointment was improper.

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

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

Federal prosecutors are proposed by the US president and require Senate approval. Federal statutes regulate how people can be assigned on a interim basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's assignment had breached these regulations.

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

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

But Bondi said on that day that she made her a special US attorney and praised her work as excellent.

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