The Future in the James Comey and James Legal Cases?

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

For weeks since their indictments, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have argued fiercely that they are innocent, asserting that the administration and DOJ are simply targeting them for retaliation.

US District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the indictments against them due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's invalid appointment as US attorney. But she also left the door open for the federal authorities to try again.

• Court throws out cases against former FBI chief Comey and New York AG James
• US judge says government 'missteps' may have compromised the Comey trial
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

Comey acknowledged that possibility after the ruling, saying he believes Trump is likely to target him once more.

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This isn't the final word on this issue.

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

In my view, it's uncharted territory, said Professor Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Could the DOJ challenge the ruling?

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

US Attorney General Pam Bondi indicated she would pursue this option, pledging to use all available legal action, including an expedited appeal.

Previously, the former administration has aggressively appealed adverse decisions, moving cases from lower courts and sometimes fast-tracking its petitions up to the US Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, pledged to keep fighting any further politically motivated charges through all legal avenues.

In the event of an appeal, the DOJ likely would have its own lawyers argue the case, making Halligan's involvement in the appeals process uncertain.

Is it possible there be new charges?

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

Both pleaded not guilty. Besides claiming Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also claimed to be targets of retaliatory legal action.

With the original indictments thrown out (though, of course, appeals could change that), the government might try to convene new grand juries and secure new charges.

Based on my analysis, a different attorney could bring James' case to a different grand jury and secure a new indictment, stated Professor Levine.

But 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 strongly disputed, whether Mr Comey's case can be re-indicted if a properly assigned attorney is appointed and is can obtain an indictment.

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

It could be more difficult for the government to try to file the exact same charges against James Comey.

A key issue is the legal time limit – the time frame that prosecutors had to charge Comey for these specific allegations – which expired at the close of September. However, the dismissal of the charges would trigger a six-month grace period for the justice department to refile the case.

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

The ruling also suggests that since the charge is void, the time limit has run and there can be no new indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What is the fate of Lindsey Halligan?

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

The judge stated in the James decision that the Attorney General's attempt to install Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was unlawful.

Therefore, she lacked legal power to present the indictment, the judge wrote.

Federal prosecutors are nominated by the president and require Senate approval. Federal statutes regulate how people can be appointed on a temporary basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's assignment had violated these laws.

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

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

But Bondi said on that day that she designated Halligan a special US attorney and commended her work as excellent.

The White House stood by its stance that Halligan's appointment was legal, press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.