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

A pair of high-profile opponents of former President Trump achieved major legal victories on the start of the week 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 innocent, claiming that the president and justice department are simply singling out them for retaliation.

US District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the indictments against them due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's invalid assignment as US attorney. However, she left the door open for the federal authorities to refile the case.

• Court throws out charges against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• US judge says government 'missteps' may have compromised the Comey trial
• What is former FBI head James Comey accused of?

Comey admitted that possibility after the decision, saying he believes Trump is likely to come after him once more.

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This will not be the final word on this matter.

But the DOJ confronts steep hurdles to effectively try either after this setback, and experts 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.

Could the justice department appeal?

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

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

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

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

In the event of an appeals process, the DOJ likely would have its own lawyers present the arguments, making Halligan's role in the appeals process uncertain.

Is it possible there be new charges?

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

Each pleaded not guilty. In addition to claiming Halligan's appointment was invalid, they also asserted to be victims of vindictive prosecution.

Since the initial charges were dismissed (although appeals might alter this), the government might try to convene fresh grand juries and obtain new charges.

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

But legal expert John Day, president of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complex process – 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 assigned and is able to secure an indictment.

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

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

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the time frame that government lawyers had to charge him for these particular claims – which expired at the close of September. However, the indictment's dismissal would trigger a six-month grace period for the justice department to refile the case.

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

The ruling also suggests that since the charge is invalid, the time limit has run and there can be no further indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What is the fate of Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings on the indictments against James and Comey, Judge Currie was blunt: Halligan's appointment was improper.

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

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

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

This makes Halligan's role on subsequent cases against both individuals, 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 that day that she made her a special federal prosecutor and praised her work as outstanding.

The White House stood by its stance that Halligan's appointment was legal, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told the press on Monday.