The Flynn Decision

Law blogger Viva Frei examines the DC Circuit Court decision ordering Judge Sullivan to grant the motion of the government to dismiss the case against General Flynn.  Go here to read the decision.  A brilliant decision by Judge Rao.  My favorite passage:

Fifth, the dissent minimizes the import of the district court’s orders, claiming that we are granting mandamus “before the district court has acted.” Dissenting Op.2(quotation marks omitted). Yet the district court has acted here. It has ordered briefing and scheduled a hearing in order to provide a court-appointed amicus the opportunity “to present arguments in opposition to the government’s Motion to Dismiss.”Order Appointing Amicus Curiae, ECF No. 205, at 1.  In other words, the court has appointed one private citizen to argue that another citizen should be deprived of his liberty regardless of whether the Executive Branch is willing to pursue the charges.  Although no decision has yet been made on the motion to dismiss, the district court’s judicial supervision, detailed supra7–8,“threatens to chill law enforcement by subjecting the prosecutor’s motives and decision making to outside inquiry.”  Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598,607–08(1985).  As explained above, we have held such “interference with the internal deliberations” of the Executive Branch to be a quintessential irreparable injury giving rise to mandamus.