What's Next in the Comey and James Legal Cases?

Two prominent opponents of former President Trump secured major legal victories on the start of the week when a federal judge threw out the government's charges against them.

For weeks since their indictments, ex-FBI chief James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have insisted vehemently that they are not guilty, claiming that the president and justice department are simply targeting them for retaliation.

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 government 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 Comey case
• What is former FBI head James Comey accused of?

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

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

But the DOJ confronts significant hurdles to successfully prosecute both after this defeat, and legal analysts are reluctant to forecast what could occur next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

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

Might the justice department appeal?

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

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

Previously, the Trump administration has strongly challenged unfavourable rulings, taking cases from lower courts and sometimes accelerating its requests up to the US Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, pledged to continue to challenge any further politically motivated charges through every lawful means available.

In the event of an appeal, the DOJ likely would have its own lawyers argue the case, making Halligan's role in the appeals process uncertain.

Is it possible there be new charges?

The government charged James Comey with making false statements to lawmakers and obstruction of justice. Federal prosecutors indicted Letitia James with financial fraud and providing false information to a bank.

Both entered not guilty pleas. Besides claiming Halligan was unlawfully appointed, they also asserted to be targets of retaliatory legal action.

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

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

But 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 re-indicted if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is assigned and is able to secure an indictment.

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

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

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the deadline that government lawyers had to charge him for these particular claims – which expired at the close of September. However, the dismissal of the charges would activate a half-year extension for the justice department to bring the case again.

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

The ruling also suggests that since the indictment is void, the time limit has expired and there can be no further indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What happens to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

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

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

Therefore, Halligan had no lawful authority to file the charges, the judge wrote.

Federal prosecutors are proposed by the US president and need US Senate confirmation. Federal statutes govern how people can be appointed on a temporary basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's assignment had breached these regulations.

This makes Halligan's role on future cases against both individuals, once more, uncertain.

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

But Attorney General Bondi said on that day that she designated Halligan a special US attorney and praised her work as outstanding.

The administration maintained its position that Halligan was lawfully appointed, press secretary Karoline Leavitt told the press on Monday.