The Future in the Comey and James Legal Cases?

Two high-profile opponents of President Trump secured significant legal victories on Monday when a federal judge dismissed the government's charges against them.

For weeks following their charges, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have argued fiercely that they are innocent, asserting that the president and justice department are simply targeting them for revenge.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges in their cases due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's invalid assignment as US attorney. However, she left open the possibility for the federal authorities to try again.

• Judge dismisses cases against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states DOJ errors may have compromised the Comey trial
• What are former FBI head James Comey accused of?

Comey admitted that possibility after the decision, saying he believes 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 matter.

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

It feels to me like uncharted territory, stated Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Might the justice department challenge the ruling?

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

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

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

Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, vowed to continue to challenge any further politically motivated charges through every lawful means available.

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

Is it possible there be fresh indictments?

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

Both pleaded not guilty. Besides claiming Halligan was unlawfully appointed, they also claimed to be targets of vindictive prosecution.

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

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

But John Day, head of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complex process – especially in the Comey matter.

It's clear that it will be hotly contested, whether Mr Comey's case can be recharged if a properly assigned attorney is assigned and is can obtain an indictment.

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

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

One problem is the legal time limit – the time frame that prosecutors had to indict him for these particular claims – which ended at the end of September. However, the indictment's dismissal would trigger a six-month grace period for the justice department to refile the case.

Still in that case, his lawyers said it intends to argue the prosecution is out of time.

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

What is the fate of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the indictments 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 install Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was invalid.

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

Federal prosecutors are nominated 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 subsequent cases against James and Comey, again, uncertain.

The ruling also could cast a shadow on 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 praised her work as outstanding.

The White House maintained its position that Halligan was lawfully appointed, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.