What comes next in the James Comey and Letitia James cases?

Two of President Trump's most prominent critics won legal victories Monday when a federal judge cleared them of government charges.

In the weeks following the indictments, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James vehemently maintained their innocence, arguing that the president and the Justice Department were simply targeting them for retribution.

U.S. District Judge Cameron Curry dismissed the indictments against them due to the “invalid” appointment of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan as U.S. attorney. But she also left the door open for the government to try again.

Comey acknowledged that possibility after the ruling, saying he believed Trump would “probably come after me again.”

And White House press secretary Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm that: “This will not be the last word on the matter.”

But the government faces significant hurdles to successfully prosecuting cases after that setback, and experts are hesitant to predict what might happen next due to the unprecedented nature of the cases.

“I think this is uncharted territory,” said Kay Levin, a professor at Emory University School of Law.

The Justice Department could challenge Judge Curry's decision to a higher appeals court. In this case, it would be the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi said she would pursue that route, vowing to pursue all available legal avenues, including an “immediate appeal.”

In other cases, the Trump administration has aggressively appealed unfavorable decisions, moving cases from lower courts and sometimes expediting its requests to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Abbey Lowell, the lawyer representing James, vowed to “continue to fight any further politically motivated charges by all legal means available.”

If appealed, the Justice Department would likely hire its own lawyers to handle the case, making Halligan's role in the appeal unclear.

The government charged Comey with lying to Congress and obstruction of justice. Federal prosecutors charged James with bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

Both pleaded not guilty. Both men not only claimed that Halligan was appointed illegally, but also claimed that they were victims of vindictive persecution.

After the original indictments were dismissed (though, of course, appeals could change that), the government could try to convene a new grand jury and force new indictments.

“From everything I've seen, another lawyer could have taken James' case to a new grand jury and gotten a new indictment,” Ms. Levin said.

But John Day, president of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a difficult road — especially in Comey's case.

“I can tell you that it will be hotly contested whether Mr. Comey's case can be re-indicted if a legally appointed prosecutor is appointed who can secure an indictment.”

He called the tangled patchwork of lawyers, judges and motions a “procedural quagmire” with no easy answers.

The government may have a harder time bringing the same charges against Comey.

One problem is the statute of limitations – the deadline within which prosecutors had to charge Comey on these specific charges – which ended at the end of September. However, the dismissal of the indictment will give the Justice Department a six-month grace period to reopen the case.

In this case, however, his legal team said it plans to argue that the government ran out of time.

“The decision also indicates that because the indictment is invalid, the statute of limitations has expired and there can be no further charges,” defense attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

In two rulings on the charges against James and Comey, Judge Curry was harsh: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

Judge Curry wrote in James' ruling that “the Attorney General's attempt to appoint Ms. Halligan as interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was invalid.”

Therefore, Halligan “did not have the legal authority to file the indictment,” she wrote.

U.S. Attorneys are appointed by the President and require confirmation by the U.S. Senate. Federal laws govern how people are appointed on a temporary basis, but Judge Curry found that Halligan's appointment violated those laws.

This again leaves Halligan's role in future cases against James and Comey unclear.

The decision could also cast a shadow over any other cases Halligan brings in the Eastern District of Virginia, where she serves.

But on Monday, Bondi said she had appointed Halligan as a “special U.S. attorney” and praised her performance as “excellent.”

The White House maintained its position that Halligan was legally appointed, spokeswoman Caroline Leavitt told reporters Monday.