The Future in the Comey and James Trials?

A pair of well-known opponents of former President Trump secured significant court wins on Monday when a federal judge threw out the government's charges against them.

Over recent weeks since their indictments, ex-FBI chief James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have insisted fiercely that they are not guilty, asserting that the president and justice department are simply singling out them for retaliation.

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

• Judge dismisses charges against ex-FBI director Comey and New York AG James
• US judge says government 'missteps' may have compromised the Comey trial
• What are former FBI head James Comey charged with?

Comey admitted that possibility after the decision, stating he believes Trump is likely to come after him once more.

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This will not be the final word on this matter.

But the DOJ faces significant hurdles to effectively try either after this defeat, and legal analysts hesitate to predict what could occur next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

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

Could the DOJ challenge the ruling?

The DOJ can contest the judge's decision before a higher appeals court. In this case, that would be the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

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

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

Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, vowed to continue to challenge any further politically driven indictments through all legal avenues.

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

Is it possible there be fresh indictments?

The government charged Comey with making false statements to Congress and obstructing justice. Federal prosecutors charged Letitia James with bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

Both entered not guilty pleas. Besides arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, they also claimed to be targets of retaliatory legal action.

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

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

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

It's clear that it will be strongly disputed, whether Comey's case can be re-indicted if a properly assigned attorney is assigned and is able to secure an charge.

He characterized the complex web of attorneys, courts, and motions involved as a procedural morass with no easy solutions.

It could be harder for the DOJ to try to bring the exact same charges against James Comey.

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the time frame that prosecutors had to indict him for these specific allegations – which expired at the close of September. However, the indictment's dismissal would trigger a half-year extension for the justice department to refile the case.

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

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

What happens to 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 appoint Ms. Halligan as Interim US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was invalid.

Therefore, Halligan had no lawful authority to file the charges, she wrote.

Federal prosecutors are nominated by the president and need Senate approval. Federal statutes govern how people can be appointed on a temporary basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's assignment had violated these regulations.

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

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

But Bondi said on Monday that she designated her a special US attorney and praised her work as outstanding.

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