The Future in the James Comey and Letitia James Court Battles?

Two prominent critics of former President Trump achieved significant court wins on the start of the week when a federal judge threw out the government's charges filed against them.

For weeks since their indictments, ex-FBI chief James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have argued vehemently that they are innocent, claiming that the administration and DOJ are simply targeting them for revenge.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the indictments against them 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 DOJ errors may have tainted Comey case
• What is ex-FBI director James Comey accused of?

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

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

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

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

Could the justice department appeal?

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

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, taking cases from lower courts and sometimes fast-tracking its petitions 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.

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

Could there be new charges?

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

Both pleaded not guilty. In addition to claiming Halligan's appointment was invalid, they also asserted to be victims of retaliatory legal action.

With the original indictments thrown out (although appeals might alter this), the government might try to assemble fresh 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 new indictment, said Professor Levine.

But John Day, head 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 recharged if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is assigned and is able to secure an indictment.

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

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

One problem is the statute of limitations – the time frame that prosecutors had to indict Comey for these specific allegations – which expired at the close of September. Nonetheless, the indictment's dismissal would trigger a six-month grace period for the DOJ to bring the case again.

Even so in that situation, his legal team said it plans to contend the government is out of time.

The decision further indicates that because the charge is void, the time limit has expired and there can be no new indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What is the fate of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

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

The judge stated in the James decision that the AG's effort to appoint Halligan as Interim US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was unlawful.

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

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

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

The decision might also raise doubts on other cases Halligan has prosecuted in the Virginia Eastern District where she works.

But Bondi said on that day that she made her a special federal prosecutor and praised her work as excellent.

The White House stood by its stance that Halligan was lawfully appointed, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.