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

A pair of high-profile opponents of former President Trump achieved significant court wins on Monday when a US judge dismissed the government's charges against them.

For weeks following their charges, ex-FBI chief James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have argued vehemently that they are innocent, claiming that the administration and DOJ are merely singling out them for retaliation.

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

• Court throws out charges against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• US judge says government 'missteps' may have tainted Comey case
• What are former FBI head James Comey accused of?

Comey admitted that likelihood after the decision, saying he believes Trump is likely to come after him again.

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

But the DOJ faces steep hurdles to effectively try either after this defeat, and experts are reluctant to forecast what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

In my view, it's uncharted territory, said Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Could the justice department challenge the ruling?

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

Attorney General Pam Bondi indicated she would pursue this option, vowing to use all legal means, including an expedited appeal.

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

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

In the event of an appeals process, the justice department probably would have its own lawyers argue the case, making Halligan's role in the appeals process uncertain.

Is it possible there be new charges?

The federal prosecutors charged Comey with making false statements to Congress and obstruction of justice. Federal prosecutors indicted James with bank fraud and providing false information to a financial institution.

Each entered not guilty pleas. In addition to arguing Halligan's appointment was invalid, both also claimed to be targets of retaliatory legal action.

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

As far as everything I've seen, a new prosecutor could present James's case to a different grand jury and get a new indictment, said Professor Levine.

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

I can tell you it will be hotly contested, whether Mr Comey's case can be re-indicted if a properly assigned attorney is assigned and is can obtain an charge.

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

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

One problem is the statute of limitations – the deadline that government lawyers had to indict him for these particular claims – which expired at the close of September. Nonetheless, the dismissal of the charges would trigger a half-year extension for the DOJ 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 because the indictment is void, the time limit has run and there can be no new indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said on Monday.

What happens to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

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

The judge stated in the James ruling that the AG's effort to install Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was invalid.

Therefore, Halligan had no lawful authority to present the indictment, the judge wrote.

Federal prosecutors are proposed by the US president and need US Senate confirmation. US laws regulate how individuals can be appointed on a interim basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's assignment had violated these laws.

This makes Halligan's role on subsequent cases against both individuals, once more, uncertain.

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 her a special federal prosecutor and commended her work as outstanding.

The White House maintained its position that Halligan's appointment was legal, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told the press on Monday.