Montgomery County District Attorney Risa Vetri Ferman celebrated her birthday with a surprise party at work on Tuesday.

There was a banner and cake, but Ferman's present came later.

That afternoon, the state Supreme Court rejected Attorney General Kathleen Kane's argument that the special prosecutor who secured a recommendation of charges against her was appointed illegally.

The decision effectively put the fate of the state's top prosecutor in Ferman's hands and shifted the media spotlight onto the Republican running for a county judgeship.

"The public and political pressure, as a Republican, will be for her to go forward unless it's clear in her mind it's a losing case," said Chris Borick, a Muhlenberg College political science professor. "If she came away with a decision not to press charges, she'll need to make a strong case for why she didn't."

In that sense, Ferman would face the same kind of scrutiny Kane did when the attorney general opted not to pursue a corruption case against Philadelphia lawmakers.

"On the other hand," said Bruce Ledewitz, a Duquesne University law professor, "if she goes forward, she'll be judged--like all prosecutors--on whether she gets a conviction."

Ledewitz, however, said he doesn't expect politics to play any role in Ferman's decision.

"I've never heard anything like that said about her and I don't think that's going to start now," he said.

Ferman, who will be 50 on Sunday, did not respond to requests for comment Tuesday.

I will miss many things when I leave this job next year. But what I will miss most are the amazing people who surround... Posted by Risa Vetri Ferman on Tuesday, March 31, 2015

Although the Supreme Court handed down a narrow decision about the appointment of special prosecutors, many observers said it represented a significant blow to the 48-year-old attorney general.

L. George Parry, a Philadelphia attorney and former prosecutor, said Ferman still could have pursued charges, albeit based on her own investigation and not the grand jury's, had the Supreme Court decided in Kane's favor.

As it stands, he said, the Supreme Court dismissed many of Kane's arguments, such as the contention that she was not bound to uphold secrecy in prior cases from before she took the oath. "I think (Ferman) can take this as a green light to proceed with criminal charges," he said.

Parry said there'll be a great deal of pressure for her to do just that.

"The question becomes: Is the district attorney of Montgomery County willing to take a political bullet for Kathleen Kane?" He said. "I'm no politician, but I think the answer is no, she's not."

Lanny Davis, Kathleen Kane's attorney, said the Supreme Court's decision was a disappointment, but added that he's hopeful Ferman "will look at the evidence and the law and find that Attorney General Kane is innocent of any violations."

After so many other setbacks, Borick said Tuesday's decision follows a familiar trajectory without any real conclusive evidence of wrongdoing.

"It means a continued precarious legal and political world for Kathleen Kane," he said.

Terry Madonna, director of the Franklin & Marshall College's Center for Politics and Public Affairs, said there were already rumors that Kane would face a challenger in the 2016 Democratic primary. That possibility can only increase in likelihood, particularly if Kane faces charges.

"The political ramifications are enormous because it leaves the prospect of whether she could be charged an open question," he said.

Perhaps more importantly, Madonna said, the entire situation has called into question the sanctity of grand juries.

The impetus for the Kane grand jury was the release of a sealed document from a grand jury investigating J. Whyatt Mondesire, the former head of the Philadelphia NAACP. That investigation never led to charges.

Subsequently, Kane's own grand jury investigation was the subject of countless leaks to the media.

"I don't think you can be certain that anything said in a grand jury is secret anymore," Madonna said, but he's doubtful that the political will exists to crack down on future leaks.

Borick said Kane's situation, regardless of the veracity of leak claims, should send a signal to other high-ranking officials that leaks that were once commonplace may come back to haunt them.

"If the state, as a whole, is going to act in a strong way in this particular case, it's going to be hard to not apply the same standard to other cases," he said. "The cries would be very loud and very reasonable."

Ledewitz said Tuesday's ruling makes clear the court's position on what had been an unchallenged practice of appointing special prosecutors. And the opinions, including the lone dissent by Justice Debra Todd, emphasized that a presiding judge must take action to investigate alleged leaks of secret material.

But Ledewitz said the Kane case probably won't lead to a major crackdown on grand jury leaks. The reason, he said, is that most leaks are "purely technical," such as the news that a presentment is about to be made public.

"It's still illegal but, frankly, what harm have you done?" He said. "I don't think judges will crack down on that kind leak."

Leaks like the one concerning Mondesire, Ledewitz said, will face more scrutiny because the material never should have been made public.

The Supreme Court opinions are also interesting for what they don't do, he said.

"There's nothing I saw in any of the opinions about the strength of the case" against Kane, Ledewitz said. "They pretty much only decided what was before them."