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

Two high-profile opponents of former President Trump secured significant court wins on the start of the week when a federal judge dismissed 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 administration and DOJ are merely targeting them for revenge.

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

• Court throws out cases against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• US judge says DOJ errors may have tainted Comey case
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey accused of?

Comey acknowledged that possibility after the ruling, saying he thinks Trump is likely to target him once more.

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

But the DOJ faces significant obstacles to effectively try either after this defeat, and experts are reluctant to forecast what could occur next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

In my view, it's unexplored legal ground, said Professor Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Could the DOJ challenge the ruling?

The DOJ can contest the judge's decision before a federal appeals court. In this case, that would be the Fourth Circuit Appeals Court.

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

In other cases, the former administration has strongly challenged unfavourable rulings, taking cases from lower courts and sometimes fast-tracking its requests up to the US Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, pledged to keep fighting any additional politically driven indictments through all legal avenues.

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

Could there be fresh indictments?

The federal prosecutors charged James Comey with making false statements to Congress and obstructing justice. Federal prosecutors indicted James with financial fraud and making false statements to a bank.

Each entered not guilty pleas. In addition to arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also asserted to be victims of retaliatory legal action.

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

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

But legal expert John Day, president 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 characterized the complex web of lawyers, courts, and legal filings involved as a legal quagmire with no easy solutions.

It might be harder for the government to try to bring the identical accusations against James Comey.

One problem is the statute of limitations – the time frame that prosecutors had to charge him for these particular claims – which ended at the close of September. Nonetheless, the indictment's dismissal would activate a six-month grace period for the justice department to bring the case again.

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 charge is void, the time limit has expired and there can be no new indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

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

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

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

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

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

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

But Bondi said on Monday that she designated her 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 reporters on Monday.