The Future in the James Comey and Letitia James Legal Cases?

A pair of prominent critics of former President Trump obtained major court wins on the start of the week when a federal judge dismissed the federal indictments filed against them.

For weeks following their charges, former FBI Director James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have insisted fiercely that they are not guilty, claiming that the president and justice department are simply targeting them for retaliation.

US District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the indictments against them due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's improper assignment as federal prosecutor. But she also left the door open for the federal authorities to refile the case.

• Court throws out charges against ex-FBI director Comey and New York AG James
• US judge says DOJ errors may have tainted the Comey trial
• What is former FBI head James Comey charged with?

Comey admitted that possibility after the ruling, saying he thinks Trump will probably target him once more.

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This isn't the final word on this issue.

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

In my view, it's unexplored legal ground, said Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Could the justice department appeal?

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

Attorney General Pam Bondi signaled she would pursue this option, vowing to use all legal means, including an immediate appeal.

In other cases, the Trump administration has aggressively appealed unfavourable rulings, taking cases from trial courts and sometimes fast-tracking its requests up to the Supreme Court.

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

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

Is it possible there be new charges?

The government accused James Comey with lying to Congress and obstructing justice. Government lawyers charged Letitia James with financial fraud and providing false information to a financial institution.

Both pleaded not guilty. In addition to claiming Halligan's appointment was invalid, they also claimed to be targets of retaliatory legal action.

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

Based on my analysis, a different attorney could present James's case to a different grand jury and get a fresh indictment, said Professor Levine.

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

It's clear that it will be strongly disputed, whether Comey's case can be recharged if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is appointed and is able to secure an indictment.

He described the complex web 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 bring the identical accusations against Comey.

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

Even so in that case, his legal team said it intends to argue the government is past the deadline.

The decision further indicates that since the indictment is invalid, the statute of limitations has expired and there can be no further indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said on Monday.

What is the fate of Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings on the charges against Comey and James, the judge was direct: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

Judge Currie wrote in the James ruling that the AG's effort to install Halligan as Interim US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was invalid.

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

Federal prosecutors are proposed by the US president and require Senate approval. Federal statutes regulate how individuals can be assigned on a temporary basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's assignment had violated these laws.

This makes Halligan's role on subsequent cases against James and Comey, again, unclear.

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

But Bondi said on that day that she designated Halligan a special federal prosecutor and praised her work as outstanding.

The administration maintained its position that Halligan was lawfully appointed, press secretary Karoline Leavitt told the press on Monday.