What's Next in the James Comey and James Court Battles?

Two high-profile critics of former President Trump achieved major court wins on the start of the week when a federal judge dismissed the government's charges against them.

For weeks following their charges, ex-FBI chief James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have maintained vehemently that they are innocent, asserting that the president and justice department are simply singling out them for revenge.

US District Judge Cameron Currie tossed the indictments against them due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's improper assignment as federal prosecutor. However, she left open the possibility for the government to refile the case.

• Judge dismisses charges against ex-FBI director Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have compromised the Comey trial
• What is former FBI head James Comey charged with?

Comey acknowledged that likelihood after the ruling, stating he thinks the former president is likely to target him once more.

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

But the DOJ faces significant hurdles to successfully prosecute both after this setback, and experts hesitate to forecast what could happen next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

In my view, it's unexplored legal ground, said Professor Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Might the DOJ challenge the ruling?

The DOJ can challenge 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 indicated she would pursue this option, vowing to use all available legal action, including an immediate appeal.

In other cases, the former administration has aggressively appealed adverse decisions, taking cases from lower courts and sometimes accelerating its petitions up to the US Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, vowed to keep fighting any further politically driven indictments through every lawful means available.

If there is an appeals process, the justice department probably would have its own lawyers argue the case, making Halligan's involvement in the appeal uncertain.

Could there be fresh indictments?

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

Both entered not guilty pleas. In addition to claiming Halligan's appointment was invalid, they also claimed to be targets of vindictive prosecution.

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

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

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

It's clear that it will be hotly contested, whether Comey's case can be recharged if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is appointed and is can obtain an indictment.

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

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

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the deadline that prosecutors had to charge Comey for these particular claims – which expired at the close of September. Nonetheless, 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 legal team said it plans to contend the prosecution is out of time.

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

What is the fate of Lindsey Halligan?

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

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

As a result, Halligan lacked legal power to file the charges, the judge wrote.

US attorneys are proposed by the US president and need US Senate confirmation. Federal statutes govern how individuals can be assigned on a interim basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's appointment had breached these laws.

That leaves Halligan's role on future cases against both individuals, once more, uncertain.

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

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

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