Two high-profile opponents of President Trump achieved significant court wins on Monday when a US judge dismissed the federal indictments against them.
For weeks following their charges, 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 retaliation.
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 federal authorities to try again.
Comey acknowledged that possibility after the decision, stating he believes the former president will probably come after him again.
And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This will not be the last chapter on this issue.
But the government faces significant obstacles to successfully prosecute either after this setback, and experts are reluctant to predict what could happen next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.
It feels to me like unexplored legal ground, said Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.
The Department of Justice can challenge 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 take this route, vowing to use all legal means, including an expedited appeal.
Previously, the Trump administration has aggressively appealed adverse decisions, moving cases from lower courts and sometimes accelerating its requests up to the US Supreme Court.
Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, pledged to continue to challenge any additional politically driven indictments through every lawful means available.
If there is an appeals process, the DOJ likely would have its own lawyers present the arguments, making Halligan's role in the appeal unclear.
The government accused Comey with making false statements to lawmakers and obstructing justice. Federal prosecutors indicted James with bank fraud and providing false information to a financial institution.
Both entered not guilty pleas. Besides claiming Halligan's appointment was invalid, they also asserted to be targets of retaliatory legal action.
Since the initial charges were dismissed (though, of course, appeals could change that), the government might try to convene new grand juries and secure new indictments.
Based on my analysis, a new prosecutor could bring James' case to a new grand jury and get a new indictment, said Ms Levine.
But legal expert John Day, head of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complex process – especially 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 appointed and is able to secure an charge.
He characterized the complex web of lawyers, judges, and legal filings involved as a procedural morass with no simple answers.
It might be harder for the DOJ to try to file the exact same charges against Comey.
One problem is the statute of limitations – the time frame that prosecutors had to indict him for these specific allegations – which expired at the end of September. However, the indictment's dismissal would activate a half-year extension for the justice department to refile the case.
Still in that situation, 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 run and there can be no new indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said on Monday.
In the pair of rulings on the charges against Comey and James, the judge was direct: Halligan's appointment was improper.
Judge Currie wrote in the James decision that the Attorney General's attempt to appoint Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was unlawful.
Therefore, Halligan lacked legal power to present the indictment, the judge wrote.
US attorneys are proposed by the president and need US Senate confirmation. US laws regulate how people can be appointed on a temporary basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's appointment had breached these laws.
This makes Halligan's position on subsequent cases against James and Comey, again, unclear.
The ruling also could raise doubts on any other cases Halligan has prosecuted in the Eastern District of Virginia where she works.
But Bondi said on Monday that she designated her a special US attorney and praised her work as excellent.
The White House maintained its position that Halligan's appointment was legal, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.
