What Lies Ahead in the Comey and Letitia James Legal Cases?

Two prominent opponents of President Trump achieved major legal victories on the start of the week when a federal judge dismissed the federal indictments against them.

Over recent weeks following their charges, ex-FBI chief James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have maintained fiercely that they are not guilty, claiming that the administration and DOJ are simply singling out them for retaliation.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie tossed the indictments in their cases due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's improper appointment as US attorney. But she also left open the possibility for the government to try again.

• Court throws out cases against ex-FBI director Comey and New York AG James
• Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have tainted Comey case
• What is former FBI head James Comey accused of?

Comey admitted that likelihood after the decision, stating he believes Trump is likely to come after him again.

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

But the government confronts significant hurdles to effectively try both after this defeat, and legal analysts are reluctant to forecast what could happen next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

In my view, it's unexplored legal ground, said Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Might the DOJ challenge the ruling?

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

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

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

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

In the event of an appeals process, the DOJ probably would have its own attorneys present the arguments, making Halligan's role in the appeals process unclear.

Is it possible there be fresh indictments?

The federal prosecutors charged James Comey with lying to lawmakers and obstructing justice. Government lawyers charged Letitia James with bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

Each pleaded not guilty. In addition to arguing 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 new grand juries and obtain 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 complex process – especially in Comey's case.

It's clear that it will be hotly contested, whether Comey's case can be re-indicted if a properly assigned attorney is assigned and is can obtain an indictment.

He characterized the complex web of attorneys, courts, and motions involved as a legal quagmire with no simple answers.

It could be more difficult for the government to try to file the identical accusations against Comey.

A key issue is the legal time limit – the deadline that prosecutors had to charge Comey for these particular claims – which ended at the end of September. However, the dismissal of the charges would trigger a half-year extension for the justice department to refile the case.

Still in that case, his legal team said it plans to argue the government is out of time.

The ruling also suggests that because the indictment is void, the statute of limitations has run and there can be no new indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said on Monday.

What is the fate of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

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

Judge Currie wrote in the James decision that the AG's effort to appoint Ms. Halligan as Interim US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was unlawful.

Therefore, she had no lawful authority to present the indictment, the judge wrote.

Federal prosecutors are proposed by the US president and require Senate approval. US laws regulate how individuals can be appointed on a temporary basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's assignment had breached these laws.

This makes Halligan's role on subsequent cases against both individuals, once more, uncertain.

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

But Bondi said on that day that she designated Halligan a special US attorney and praised her work as excellent.

The White House maintained its position that Halligan's appointment was legal, press secretary Karoline Leavitt told the press on Monday.