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

A pair of well-known opponents of President Trump achieved significant legal victories on the start of the week when a federal judge threw out the government's charges against them.

Over recent weeks since their indictments, ex-FBI chief James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have maintained fiercely that they are not guilty, asserting that the president and justice department are simply singling out them for retaliation.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie tossed the charges in their cases due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's invalid assignment as US attorney. However, she left the door open for the federal authorities to try again.

• Court throws out cases against ex-FBI director Comey and New York AG James
• Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have compromised the Comey trial
• What is ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

Comey admitted that possibility after the ruling, stating he believes Trump is likely to target him once more.

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

But the government faces significant hurdles to successfully prosecute both after this setback, and legal analysts are reluctant to forecast what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

In my view, it's uncharted territory, said Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Could the DOJ challenge the ruling?

The DOJ can challenge Judge Currie's ruling before a higher appeals court. In this instance, that would be the Fourth Circuit Appeals Court.

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

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

Attorney Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, vowed to continue to challenge any additional politically driven indictments through every lawful means available.

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

Could there be fresh indictments?

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

Both entered not guilty pleas. In addition to arguing Halligan's appointment was invalid, they also claimed to be targets of vindictive prosecution.

Since the initial charges were dismissed (though, of course, appeals could change that), the DOJ might try to assemble fresh grand juries and obtain new indictments.

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

But John Day, head 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 strongly disputed, whether Mr Comey's case can be recharged if a properly assigned attorney is assigned and is can obtain an charge.

He described the tangle of lawyers, judges, and legal filings involved as a legal quagmire with no easy solutions.

It could be harder for the government to try to file 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 specific allegations – which expired 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 case, his legal team said it intends to argue the government is out of time.

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

What is the fate of Lindsey Halligan?

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

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

As a result, Halligan had no lawful authority to present the indictment, she wrote.

Federal prosecutors are nominated by the president and need US Senate confirmation. Federal statutes regulate how people can be assigned on a temporary basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's appointment had violated these laws.

This makes Halligan's position on subsequent cases against James and Comey, again, uncertain.

The decision might also raise doubts on any other cases Halligan has prosecuted in the Virginia Eastern District where she works.

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

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