What Lies Ahead in the James Comey and James Trials?

A pair of high-profile critics of former President Trump obtained major legal victories on the start of the week when a federal judge threw out the federal indictments filed against them.

Over recent weeks since their indictments, ex-FBI chief James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have insisted fiercely that they are not guilty, claiming that the administration and DOJ are merely targeting them for retaliation.

US District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the indictments in their cases due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's improper assignment as federal prosecutor. But she also left the door open for the government to try again.

• Court throws out cases against ex-FBI director Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states DOJ errors may have tainted Comey case
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

Comey acknowledged that likelihood after the decision, saying he believes Trump is likely to target him again.

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

But the DOJ confronts steep obstacles to effectively try either after this setback, and legal analysts hesitate to forecast what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

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

Might the DOJ challenge the ruling?

The DOJ can contest Judge Currie's ruling before a higher appeals court. In this case, 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.

Previously, the Trump administration has aggressively appealed unfavourable rulings, taking cases from lower courts and sometimes fast-tracking its petitions up to the Supreme Court.

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

If there is an appeal, the DOJ likely would have its own lawyers present the arguments, making Halligan's role in the appeal uncertain.

Could there be new charges?

The government accused James Comey with lying to Congress and obstructing justice. Government lawyers charged Letitia James with financial fraud and providing false information to a financial institution.

Both pleaded not guilty. In addition to arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also asserted to be targets of retaliatory legal action.

With the original indictments thrown out (though, of course, appeals could change that), the government might try to convene fresh grand juries and secure new indictments.

Based on my analysis, a new prosecutor could present James's case to a new 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.

I can tell you it will be hotly contested, whether Mr Comey's case can be recharged if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is assigned and is able to secure an indictment.

He characterized the complex web of lawyers, judges, and legal filings involved as a legal quagmire with no simple answers.

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

One problem is the legal time limit – the time frame that government lawyers had to charge him for these specific allegations – which ended at the end of September. However, the indictment's dismissal would activate a half-year extension for the DOJ to refile the case.

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

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

What happens to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the indictments against Comey and James, the judge was blunt: Halligan's appointment was improper.

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

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

Federal prosecutors are proposed by the US president and need Senate approval. Federal statutes regulate how people can be assigned on a interim basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's appointment had breached these regulations.

That leaves Halligan's position on future cases against James and Comey, again, uncertain.

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

But Bondi said on that day that she made her a special federal prosecutor and praised her work as excellent.

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