The Future in the James Comey and James Trials?

A pair of high-profile opponents of President Trump obtained significant court wins on the start of the week when a US judge threw out the federal indictments filed against them.

For weeks since their indictments, ex-FBI chief James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have argued fiercely that they are not guilty, asserting that the president and justice department are merely singling out them for retaliation.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie tossed the charges in their cases due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's invalid appointment as federal prosecutor. But she also left open the possibility for the federal authorities to refile the case.

• Judge dismisses cases against ex-FBI director Comey and New York AG James
• Federal judge states DOJ errors may have compromised Comey case
• What are former FBI head James Comey charged with?

Comey acknowledged that possibility after the ruling, stating he believes Trump will probably target him again.

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

But the DOJ confronts steep hurdles to effectively try both after this setback, and legal analysts hesitate to predict what could happen next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

In my view, it's uncharted territory, stated Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Might the DOJ challenge the ruling?

The DOJ can contest 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 signaled she would pursue this option, vowing to use all legal means, including an immediate appeal.

Previously, the former administration has strongly challenged unfavourable rulings, moving cases from lower courts and sometimes accelerating its requests up to the Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, pledged to keep fighting any additional politically motivated charges through all legal avenues.

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

Is it possible there be new charges?

The government accused Comey with making false statements to lawmakers and obstructing justice. Federal prosecutors charged James with bank fraud and providing false information to a financial institution.

Each pleaded not guilty. Besides arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, they also asserted to be targets of retaliatory legal action.

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

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

But legal expert John Day, president of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complicated path – 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 appointed and is able to secure an charge.

He characterized the tangle of lawyers, courts, and motions involved as a legal quagmire with no easy solutions.

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

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the time frame that government lawyers had to indict him for these specific allegations – which ended at the close of September. However, the dismissal of the charges would activate a six-month grace period for the DOJ to bring the case again.

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

The decision further indicates that since the indictment 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 charges against James and Comey, Judge Currie was direct: Halligan's appointment was improper.

The judge stated in the James ruling that the AG's effort to install Ms. Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was unlawful.

As a result, Halligan lacked legal power to file the charges, the judge wrote.

Federal prosecutors are nominated by the US president and require US Senate confirmation. Federal statutes govern how individuals can be appointed on a interim basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's appointment had violated these laws.

That leaves Halligan's role on subsequent cases against both individuals, once more, unclear.

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

But Bondi said on Monday that she designated Halligan a special US attorney and commended her work as outstanding.

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