The Future in the Comey and James Trials?

A pair of prominent critics of President Trump secured significant court wins on Monday when a federal judge threw out the federal indictments filed against them.

For weeks since their indictments, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have argued vehemently that they are innocent, claiming that the president and justice department are simply targeting them for retaliation.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the charges against them due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's invalid assignment as federal prosecutor. But she also left the door open for the federal authorities to refile the case.

• Court throws out charges against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states government 'missteps' may have tainted Comey case
• What is ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

Comey acknowledged that possibility after the decision, stating he thinks Trump will probably target him once more.

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

But the government faces steep hurdles to successfully prosecute both after this defeat, and experts hesitate to forecast what could happen next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

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

Might the DOJ challenge the ruling?

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

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

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

Attorney Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, pledged to keep fighting any further politically motivated charges through all legal avenues.

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

Is it possible there be new charges?

The federal prosecutors accused Comey with making false statements to Congress and obstructing justice. Government lawyers charged James with bank fraud and making false statements to a bank.

Both pleaded not guilty. Besides claiming Halligan's appointment was invalid, they also claimed to be victims of vindictive prosecution.

With the original indictments thrown out (though, of course, appeals could change that), the government might try to assemble fresh grand juries and secure new charges.

As far as everything I've seen, a new prosecutor could bring James' case to a new grand jury and secure a fresh indictment, said Ms 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 Mr Comey's case can be re-indicted if a properly assigned attorney is assigned and is can obtain an indictment.

He characterized the complex web of lawyers, courts, and legal filings involved as a procedural morass with no easy solutions.

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

One problem is the statute of limitations – the deadline that government lawyers had to indict Comey for these specific allegations – which expired at the end of September. However, the indictment's dismissal would trigger a six-month grace period for the justice department to refile the case.

Still in that situation, his lawyers said it intends to contend the prosecution is out of time.

The decision further indicates that since the charge is invalid, the time limit has expired and there can be no new indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said on Monday.

What is the fate of Lindsey Halligan?

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

The judge stated 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 lacked legal power to file the charges, the judge wrote.

US attorneys are proposed by the president and require US Senate confirmation. US laws regulate how individuals can be assigned on a interim basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's appointment had violated these laws.

That leaves Halligan's position on future cases against both individuals, once more, uncertain.

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

But Attorney General Bondi said on that day that she made Halligan a special federal prosecutor 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.