What Lies Ahead in the James Comey and Letitia James Court Battles?

A pair of prominent critics of former President Trump achieved major court wins on Monday when a US judge dismissed the federal indictments against them.

Over recent weeks following their charges, ex-FBI chief James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have insisted vehemently that they are innocent, asserting that the administration and DOJ are simply singling out them for revenge.

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

• Court throws out cases against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• US judge says government 'missteps' may have tainted Comey case
• What are former FBI head James Comey charged with?

Comey admitted that likelihood after the decision, stating he believes the former president will probably come after him once more.

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This will not be the final word on this issue.

But the DOJ faces significant obstacles to effectively try both after this defeat, and experts are reluctant to predict what could occur next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

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

Might the DOJ appeal?

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

Attorney General Pam Bondi signaled she would take this route, vowing to use all legal means, including an expedited appeal.

In other cases, the Trump administration has aggressively appealed unfavourable rulings, moving cases from lower courts and sometimes accelerating its requests up to the US Supreme Court.

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

If there is an appeals process, the DOJ probably would have its own lawyers present the arguments, making Halligan's involvement in the appeal uncertain.

Could there be new charges?

The government accused Comey with making false statements to lawmakers and obstruction of justice. Government lawyers indicted Letitia James with financial fraud and providing false information to a financial institution.

Each pleaded not guilty. Besides claiming Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also asserted to be targets of vindictive prosecution.

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

As far as everything I've seen, a new prosecutor could present James's case to a different grand jury and get a fresh indictment, stated Ms Levine.

But legal expert John Day, president of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complex process – certainly in the Comey matter.

It's clear that it will be strongly disputed, whether Mr Comey's case can be re-indicted if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is assigned and is can obtain an charge.

He described the tangle of attorneys, judges, and motions involved as a legal quagmire with no simple answers.

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

A key issue is the legal time limit – the deadline that prosecutors had to charge him for these specific allegations – which expired at the end 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 situation, his lawyers said it intends to argue the prosecution is past the deadline.

The ruling also suggests that because the indictment is void, the statute of limitations has expired and there can be no further indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said on Monday.

What happens to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings on the indictments against Comey and James, Judge Currie was blunt: Halligan's appointment was improper.

The judge stated 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 invalid.

As a result, Halligan had no lawful authority to present the indictment, 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 assignment had breached these laws.

This makes Halligan's position on future cases against both individuals, once more, unclear.

The decision might also cast a shadow 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 US attorney and commended her work as excellent.

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