The Future in the James Comey and Letitia James Trials?

Two well-known critics of President Trump secured major legal victories on the start of the week when a US judge dismissed the government's charges filed against them.

For weeks following their charges, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have insisted fiercely that they are not guilty, asserting that the president and justice department are merely singling out them for revenge.

US District Judge Cameron Currie tossed the indictments in their cases due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's invalid assignment as federal prosecutor. However, she left open the possibility for the government to refile the case.

• Judge dismisses cases against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• US judge says government 'missteps' may have tainted Comey case
• What are former FBI head James Comey accused of?

Comey admitted that likelihood after the decision, saying he believes Trump will probably target him once more.

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

But the DOJ faces steep obstacles to successfully prosecute either after this setback, and legal analysts hesitate to predict 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 justice department 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 pursue this option, pledging to use all available legal action, including an immediate appeal.

Previously, the former administration has aggressively appealed unfavourable rulings, moving cases from lower courts and sometimes fast-tracking its petitions up to the Supreme Court.

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

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

Could there be fresh indictments?

The government accused Comey with lying to lawmakers and obstruction of justice. Government lawyers charged Letitia James with bank fraud and providing false information to a financial institution.

Each pleaded not guilty. In addition to claiming Halligan was unlawfully appointed, they also claimed to be victims of retaliatory legal action.

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

Based on my analysis, a different attorney could present James's 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 complicated path – especially in the Comey matter.

I can tell you 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 characterized the complex web of attorneys, judges, and legal filings involved as a procedural morass with no simple answers.

It could be more difficult for the DOJ to try to bring the exact same charges against Comey.

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the deadline that prosecutors had to indict him for these specific allegations – which expired at the close of September. Nonetheless, the indictment's dismissal would trigger a six-month grace period for the DOJ to refile the case.

Even so in that situation, his legal team said it intends to contend the prosecution is past the deadline.

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

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings on the charges against Comey and James, the judge was direct: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

The judge stated in the James decision that the Attorney General's attempt to install Ms. Halligan as Interim US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was invalid.

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

Federal prosecutors are nominated by the president and require US Senate confirmation. Federal statutes regulate how individuals can be assigned on a temporary basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's assignment had breached these regulations.

That leaves Halligan's position on subsequent cases against James and Comey, once more, uncertain.

The decision might also cast a shadow on other cases Halligan has brought in the Virginia Eastern District where she works.

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

The administration maintained its position that Halligan's appointment was legal, press secretary Karoline Leavitt told the press on Monday.