What Lies Ahead in the James Comey and James Legal Cases?

A pair of prominent opponents of President Trump achieved major court wins on the start of the week when a federal judge threw out the federal indictments against them.

Over recent weeks following their charges, ex-FBI chief James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have insisted vehemently that they are innocent, claiming that the administration and DOJ are simply singling out them for retaliation.

US District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges against them due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's improper assignment as federal prosecutor. However, she left the door open for the government to try again.

• Court throws out cases against ex-FBI director Comey and New York AG James
• Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have compromised Comey case
• What is former FBI head James Comey charged with?

Comey acknowledged that possibility after the decision, stating he believes Trump will probably come after him once more.

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This will not be the last chapter on this matter.

But the government confronts steep obstacles to effectively try both 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, stated Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Might the justice department 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.

Attorney General Pam Bondi signaled she would pursue this option, pledging to use all available legal action, including an expedited appeal.

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

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

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

Could there be fresh indictments?

The federal prosecutors charged James Comey with lying to Congress and obstruction of justice. Government lawyers charged James with bank fraud and making false statements to a bank.

Both pleaded not guilty. In addition to arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also claimed to be victims of retaliatory legal action.

With the original indictments thrown out (although appeals might alter this), the DOJ might try to assemble fresh grand juries and obtain new indictments.

As far as everything I've seen, a different attorney could bring James' case to a new grand jury and secure a new indictment, stated Professor Levine.

But legal expert John Day, head of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complicated path – certainly in Comey's case.

It's clear that it will be hotly contested, whether Mr Comey's case can be recharged if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is assigned and is can obtain an charge.

He characterized the tangle of lawyers, courts, and legal filings involved as a procedural morass with no simple answers.

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

A key issue is the legal time limit – the deadline that government lawyers had to charge him for these particular claims – which ended at the end of September. Nonetheless, the dismissal of the charges would activate a six-month grace period for the justice department to refile the case.

Still in that case, his legal team said it plans to argue the government is past the deadline.

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

What happens to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings on the charges against Comey and James, the judge was direct: Halligan's appointment was improper.

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

Federal prosecutors are proposed by the president and need US Senate confirmation. Federal statutes govern how people can be assigned on a temporary basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's assignment had breached these regulations.

That leaves Halligan's position on future cases against James and Comey, once more, uncertain.

The ruling also could cast a shadow on other cases Halligan has prosecuted in the Virginia Eastern District where she serves.

But Attorney General Bondi said on that day that she made 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 the press on Monday.