What's Next in the James Comey and Letitia James Trials?

Two well-known opponents of President Trump achieved major legal victories on the start of the week when a federal judge dismissed the government's charges against them.

Over recent weeks following their charges, ex-FBI chief James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have argued fiercely that they are innocent, claiming that the administration and DOJ are simply singling out them for retaliation.

US District Judge Cameron Currie tossed the charges against them due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's improper appointment as federal prosecutor. But she also left open the possibility for the government to refile the case.

• Court throws out charges against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• US judge says DOJ errors may have compromised the Comey trial
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

Comey acknowledged that likelihood after the decision, saying he thinks the former president is likely to target him once more.

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

But the DOJ faces significant obstacles to effectively try both after this defeat, and experts hesitate to forecast what could occur next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

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

Might the DOJ challenge the ruling?

The Department of Justice can challenge Judge Currie's ruling before a federal appeals court. In this case, that would be the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

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

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

Attorney Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, vowed to keep fighting any further politically driven indictments through all legal avenues.

If there is an appeals process, the DOJ probably would have its own attorneys present the arguments, making Halligan's role in the appeals process unclear.

Could there be fresh indictments?

The federal prosecutors accused Comey with lying to lawmakers and obstruction of justice. Government lawyers 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, they also asserted to be targets of retaliatory legal action.

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

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

But legal expert John Day, head of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complicated path – certainly in Comey's case.

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

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

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

A key issue is the legal time limit – the deadline that prosecutors had to charge him for these specific allegations – which ended at the close of September. However, the dismissal of the charges would activate a half-year extension for the DOJ to refile the case.

Even so in that situation, his legal team said it plans to argue the prosecution is out of time.

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

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings on the indictments against Comey and James, the judge was blunt: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

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

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

Federal prosecutors are nominated by the president and require Senate approval. Federal statutes govern how individuals can be assigned on a temporary basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's assignment had violated these laws.

That leaves Halligan's role on subsequent cases against James and Comey, once more, uncertain.

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

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

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