The Future in the Comey and Letitia James Legal Cases?

Two high-profile opponents of former President Trump secured major legal victories on Monday when a US judge dismissed the government's charges against them.

For weeks following their charges, ex-FBI chief James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have argued fiercely that they are innocent, claiming that the president and justice department are merely targeting them for retaliation.

US District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges against them due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's improper assignment as federal prosecutor. But she also left open the possibility 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 the Comey trial
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

Comey admitted that possibility after the ruling, stating he believes Trump is likely to come after him again.

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This will not be the final word on this matter.

But the government confronts significant obstacles to successfully prosecute either after this defeat, and experts hesitate to predict what could occur next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

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

Might the justice department appeal?

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

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

In other cases, the former administration has aggressively appealed adverse decisions, moving cases from trial courts and sometimes fast-tracking its requests up to the Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, vowed to continue to challenge any further politically motivated charges through all legal avenues.

If there is an appeal, the justice department likely would have its own lawyers argue the case, making Halligan's involvement in the appeals process unclear.

Could there be new charges?

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

Both entered not guilty pleas. In addition to claiming Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also asserted to be targets of vindictive prosecution.

With the original indictments thrown out (although appeals might alter this), the government might try to convene new grand juries and secure new indictments.

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

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

I can tell you it will be strongly disputed, whether Comey's case can be re-indicted if a properly assigned attorney is appointed and is can obtain an charge.

He characterized the complex web of lawyers, courts, and motions involved as a legal quagmire with no easy solutions.

It could be harder for the DOJ to try to bring the exact same charges against James Comey.

One problem is the legal time limit – the time frame that government lawyers had to charge him for these particular claims – which ended at the end of September. Nonetheless, the dismissal of the charges would trigger a half-year extension for the DOJ to bring the case again.

Even so in that case, his lawyers said it intends to argue the government is past the deadline.

The decision further indicates that because the indictment is void, the time limit has expired and there can be no new indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said on Monday.

What is the fate of Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings on the charges against James and Comey, Judge Currie was blunt: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

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

Therefore, she had no lawful authority to present the indictment, she wrote.

US attorneys are nominated by the US president and need Senate approval. Federal statutes govern how people can be assigned on a temporary basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's assignment had breached 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 Eastern District of Virginia where she serves.

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

The White House maintained its position that Halligan was lawfully appointed, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.