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

A pair of high-profile critics of former President Trump achieved significant court wins on the start of the week when a US judge threw out the government's charges filed against them.

For weeks since their indictments, ex-FBI chief James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have argued fiercely that they are not guilty, asserting that the administration and DOJ are simply singling out them for retaliation.

US District Judge Cameron Currie tossed the charges against them due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's invalid appointment as federal prosecutor. But she also left open the possibility for the federal authorities to refile the case.

• Court throws out charges against ex-FBI director Comey and New York AG James
• Federal judge states DOJ errors may have tainted Comey case
• What are former FBI head James Comey accused of?

Comey acknowledged that likelihood after the ruling, stating he thinks the former president will probably target him again.

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

But the DOJ confronts steep obstacles to effectively try both after this setback, and experts hesitate to forecast what could occur next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

It feels to me like unexplored legal ground, stated Professor Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Could the DOJ appeal?

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

US Attorney General Pam Bondi signaled she would take this route, vowing to use all available legal action, including an immediate appeal.

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

Attorney Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, pledged to continue to challenge any additional politically driven indictments through every lawful means available.

If there is an appeals process, the justice department likely would have its own attorneys argue the case, making Halligan's role in the appeals process uncertain.

Is it possible there be fresh indictments?

The government accused James Comey with making false statements to lawmakers and obstructing justice. Government lawyers indicted Letitia James with bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

Each pleaded not guilty. In addition to arguing Halligan's appointment was invalid, both also asserted to be victims of retaliatory legal action.

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

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

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

It's clear that it will be strongly disputed, whether Comey's case can be recharged if a properly assigned attorney is appointed and is can obtain an charge.

He described the complex web of lawyers, courts, and legal filings involved as a procedural morass with no easy solutions.

It might be more difficult for the government to try to bring the identical accusations against Comey.

A key issue is the legal time limit – the time frame that government lawyers had to indict Comey for these particular claims – 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 bring the case again.

Even so in that case, his lawyers said it plans to argue the government is past the deadline.

The decision further indicates that because the charge is void, the statute of limitations has expired and there can be no further indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said on Monday.

What is the fate of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the indictments against Comey and James, the judge was blunt: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

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

Therefore, Halligan lacked legal power to file the charges, the judge wrote.

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

That leaves Halligan's position on subsequent cases against James and Comey, again, unclear.

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

But Attorney General Bondi said on Monday that she designated her a special federal prosecutor and commended her work as outstanding.

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