Replies

This should result in an immediate application to the Court of Appeals for a Write of Mandamus on the grounds that Sullivan has exceeded his discretion. Amusingly Chief Justice Ginsberg just issued an order on exactly this topic.

In particular Ginisberg made clear that as the neutral party the judge cannot take an interest in or prosecuted case that the DOJ will not prosecute.

On May 7 2020 AJ Ginsburg writing for the court in a 9-0 decision in UNITED STATES v. SINENENG-SMITH reversing the 9th circus stated

Instead of adjudicating the case presented by the parties, however, the court named three amici and invited them to brief and argue issues framed by the panel, including a question never raised by Sineneng-Smith: Whether the statute is overbroad under the First Amendment. ....

The Nation’s adversarial adjudication system follows the principle of party presentation. Greenlaw v. United States, 554 U. S. 237, 243. “In both civil and criminal cases, . . . we rely on the parties to frame the issues for decision and assign to courts the role of neutral arbiter of matters the parties present.” Id., at 243

Even more damning in this case is what Ginsburg wrote in the cited Greenlaw case where she said:

“[o]ur adversary system is designed around the premise that the parties know what is best for them, and are responsible for advancing the facts and arguments entitling them to relief.” (Scalia, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). As cogently explained:

“[Courts] do not, or should not, sally forth each day looking for wrongs to right. We wait for cases to come to us, and when they do we normally decide only questions presented by the parties.Counsel almost always know a great deal more about their cases than we do, and this must be particularly true of counsel for the United States, the richest, most powerful, and best represented litigant to appear before us.

And Ginsburg continues in Greenlaw: This Court has recognized that “the Executive Branch has exclusive authority and absolute discretion to decide whether to prosecute a case.” United States v. Nixon, 418 U. S. 683, 693 (1974)

So holdeth Ginsburg and her colleagues.

In this case, the United States has withdrawn from prosecution and sought to dismiss.

Judge Sullivan cannot continue a prosecution in place of the DOJ.

Tweet from Victoria Toensig: Does Judge Sullivan read SupCt decisions? Last week SupCt held using amici was “drastic departure” and “abuse of discretion.” Why amici for @GenFlynn now when Judge refused Flynn friends amici 24 times. Judge shld be removed from case...then from Bench.

Spot on. This is contempt of the SC on Sullivan’s part.
He could have accepted or rejected the guilty plea previously entered, but now he has furthered grounds for dismissal by his misconduct.