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

A pair of well-known critics of former President Trump obtained significant court wins on Monday when a US judge dismissed the government's charges against them.

For weeks since their indictments, ex-FBI chief James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have insisted vehemently that they are innocent, asserting that the administration and DOJ are merely targeting them for revenge.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges against them due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's invalid appointment as US attorney. However, she left open the possibility for the federal authorities to try again.

• Judge dismisses charges against ex-FBI director Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states DOJ errors may have compromised Comey case
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey accused of?

Comey acknowledged that likelihood after the ruling, saying he believes Trump is likely to target him again.

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

But the DOJ confronts significant hurdles to successfully prosecute either after this defeat, and experts are reluctant to forecast what could happen next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

It feels to me like uncharted territory, said Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Might the justice department challenge the ruling?

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

Attorney General Pam Bondi indicated she would take this route, pledging to use all legal means, including an immediate appeal.

In other cases, the former administration has strongly challenged adverse decisions, moving cases from trial courts and sometimes accelerating its petitions up to the 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 likely would have its own attorneys present the arguments, making Halligan's involvement in the appeal unclear.

Is it possible there be fresh indictments?

The government accused Comey with making false statements to Congress and obstruction of justice. Federal prosecutors charged James with bank fraud and providing false information to a bank.

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

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

As far as everything I've seen, a new prosecutor could bring James' case to a different grand jury and secure 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 the Comey matter.

I can tell you it will be strongly disputed, whether Mr Comey's case can be re-indicted if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is assigned and is able to secure an charge.

He described the tangle of lawyers, judges, and motions involved as a procedural morass with no easy solutions.

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

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the deadline 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 activate a half-year extension for the DOJ to refile the case.

Still in that situation, his lawyers said it intends to argue the government is past the deadline.

The ruling also suggests that because the indictment is void, the statute of limitations has run and there can be no new indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

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

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

Therefore, she lacked legal power to file the charges, she wrote.

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

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

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

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

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