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

A pair of well-known critics of former President Trump secured major legal victories on the start of the week when a federal judge threw out the government's charges against them.

For weeks since their indictments, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have argued vehemently that they are innocent, asserting that the administration and DOJ are simply targeting them for revenge.

US District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the indictments in their cases due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's invalid appointment as federal prosecutor. But she also left the door open for the government to refile the case.

• Court throws out charges against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• US judge says DOJ errors may have tainted the Comey trial
• What are former FBI head James Comey accused of?

Comey acknowledged that likelihood after the ruling, stating he thinks the former president will probably come after him once more.

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This isn't the last chapter on this issue.

But the DOJ confronts significant hurdles to successfully prosecute either after this setback, and experts are reluctant to predict what could happen next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

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

Could the justice department challenge the ruling?

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

US Attorney General Pam Bondi indicated she would pursue this option, pledging to use all legal means, including an expedited appeal.

Previously, the Trump administration has strongly challenged adverse decisions, moving cases from trial courts and sometimes accelerating its petitions up to the Supreme Court.

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

If there is an appeals process, the DOJ probably would have its own attorneys argue the case, making Halligan's involvement in the appeal unclear.

Is it possible there be new charges?

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

Both pleaded not guilty. Besides claiming Halligan's appointment was invalid, both also claimed to be victims of vindictive prosecution.

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

As far as everything I've seen, a different attorney could present James's case to a new grand jury and get a new indictment, said Professor 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 Comey's case can be recharged if a properly assigned attorney is assigned and is able to secure an indictment.

He described the complex web of attorneys, judges, and motions involved as a procedural morass with no easy solutions.

It could be harder for the government to try to bring the identical accusations against James Comey.

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the time frame that prosecutors had to indict Comey for these particular claims – which expired at the close of September. However, the indictment's dismissal would activate a six-month grace period for the justice department to bring the case again.

Still in that case, his lawyers said it intends to contend the prosecution is past the deadline.

The ruling also suggests that because the charge is void, the statute of limitations has run 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 Comey and James, Judge Currie was direct: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

The judge stated in the James ruling that the Attorney General's attempt to appoint Halligan as Interim US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was unlawful.

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

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

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

The ruling also could raise doubts on other cases Halligan has brought in the Eastern District of Virginia where she serves.

But Attorney General Bondi said on Monday that she designated her a special federal prosecutor and commended her work as excellent.

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