What's Next in the Comey and Letitia James Legal Cases?

A pair of well-known critics of President Trump obtained major legal victories on Monday when a federal judge threw out the government's charges filed against them.

Over recent weeks following their charges, ex-FBI chief James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have insisted vehemently that they are innocent, claiming that the administration and DOJ are simply singling out them for retaliation.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie tossed the charges in their cases due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's improper assignment as US attorney. But she also left open the possibility for the federal authorities to refile the case.

• Court throws out cases against ex-FBI director Comey and NY attorney general James
• US judge says DOJ errors may have tainted the Comey trial
• What is ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

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

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

But the government faces significant obstacles to successfully prosecute either after this defeat, and legal analysts are reluctant to predict what could happen next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

In my view, it's uncharted territory, said Professor Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Might the justice department challenge the ruling?

The DOJ can challenge Judge Currie's ruling 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, pledging to use all available legal action, including an immediate appeal.

Previously, the Trump administration has aggressively appealed adverse decisions, moving cases from lower courts and sometimes fast-tracking its requests up to the US Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, pledged to keep fighting any further politically motivated charges through all legal avenues.

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

Is it possible there be fresh indictments?

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

Each entered not guilty pleas. In addition to arguing Halligan's appointment was invalid, both also asserted to be victims of vindictive prosecution.

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

Based on my analysis, a new prosecutor could present James's case to a new grand jury and secure a fresh indictment, stated Ms Levine.

But legal expert John Day, head 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 Mr Comey's case can be re-indicted if a properly assigned attorney is assigned and is able to secure an indictment.

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

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

One problem is the legal time limit – the deadline that government lawyers had to indict Comey for these particular claims – which ended at the end of September. Nonetheless, the indictment's dismissal would activate a half-year extension for the justice department to bring the case again.

Even so in that case, his legal team said it intends to contend the government is out of time.

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

What happens to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the indictments against Comey and James, Judge Currie was direct: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

The judge stated in the James decision that the AG's effort to appoint Ms. Halligan as Interim US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was unlawful.

As a result, Halligan lacked legal power to present the indictment, the judge wrote.

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

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

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

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

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