The Future in the James Comey and Letitia James Court Battles?

Two prominent opponents of President Trump obtained significant legal victories on Monday when a federal judge threw out the government's charges filed against them.

Over recent weeks following their charges, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have insisted vehemently that they are not guilty, claiming that the administration and DOJ are merely targeting them for retaliation.

US District Judge Cameron Currie tossed the charges against them due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's improper appointment as federal prosecutor. However, she left open the possibility for the federal authorities to try again.

• Court throws out charges against ex-FBI director Comey and New York AG James
• Federal judge states DOJ errors may have tainted Comey case
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey accused of?

Comey acknowledged that likelihood after the ruling, stating he thinks Trump is likely to target him again.

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

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

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

Could the DOJ challenge the ruling?

The DOJ can challenge the judge's decision before a federal appeals court. In this instance, that would be the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

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

In other cases, the former administration has strongly challenged adverse decisions, taking cases from trial courts and sometimes fast-tracking its requests up to the Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, pledged to continue to challenge any additional politically motivated charges through all legal avenues.

If there is an appeal, the justice department probably 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 federal prosecutors accused James Comey with lying to lawmakers and obstructing justice. Federal prosecutors charged James with financial fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

Each entered not guilty pleas. Besides arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, they also claimed to be victims of retaliatory legal action.

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

As far as everything I've seen, a different attorney could present James's case to a different grand jury and get a fresh indictment, stated Ms Levine.

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

I can tell you it will be hotly contested, whether Comey's case can be re-indicted if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is appointed and is can obtain an indictment.

He described the complex web of lawyers, judges, and legal filings involved as a procedural morass with no simple answers.

It could be harder for the DOJ to try to bring the exact same charges against Comey.

One problem is the legal time limit – the time frame that government lawyers had to indict him for these particular claims – which expired at the end of September. However, the dismissal of the charges would trigger 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 contend the prosecution is past the deadline.

The decision further indicates that because the indictment is void, the time limit has expired and there can be no further indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said on Monday.

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

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

Judge Currie wrote in the James ruling that the Attorney General's attempt to appoint Ms. Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was unlawful.

Therefore, she lacked legal power to present the indictment, she wrote.

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

That leaves Halligan's role on subsequent cases against both individuals, again, uncertain.

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

But Attorney General Bondi said on Monday that she made her a special federal prosecutor and praised her work as outstanding.

The White House stood by its stance that Halligan was lawfully appointed, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.