Judge Sullivan defies highly relevant precedent with his ‘amicus’ project in Flynn case

Judge Sullivan defies highly relevant precedent with his ‘amicus’ project in Flynn case
U.S. Supreme Court

[Ed. – A super post by Ed Morrissey, if you want a primer on recent SCOTUS decisions that definitively prohibit what Sullivan is doing.  Read the whole thing.]

Over at Forbes, Mark Chenowith labors under the impression that this principle [stare decisis] still applies. He notes that Judge Emmet Sullivan’s attempts to appoint a prosecutor to look for crimes that Michael Flynn might have committed by accepting a plea deal violates not one but two controlling precedents. One such precedent was delivered just a week ago in US v Sineneng-Smith, on a 9-0 Supreme Court vote and an opinion:

… the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 9-0 decision … that took judges to task for similar amicus antics. Her opinion for the Court in U.S. v. Sineneng-Smith upbraided the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for violating a basic aspect of legal proceedings called the “party presentation principle.” In a nutshell, this concept dictates that judges must decide the case as presented by the parties before them. They are not to go out questing for dragons to slay (or issues to tackle) that the parties have not brought before them. …


If Sullivan somehow missed the news on Sineneng-Smith, he surely couldn’t have missed US v Fokker Servs BV … That DC Circuit appellate precedent got delivered four years ago and is “even more squarely on point” …

Continue reading →


For your convenience, you may leave commments below using Disqus. If Disqus is not appearing for you, please disable AdBlock to leave a comment.