Read on Twitter
THREAD: A quick thread on United States v. Sineneng-Smith which many have been highlighting concerning Judge Sullivan& #39;s appointment of Gleeson as an amicus and also his docket order opening up possibility of other amicus. I understand why folks are highlighting that. 1/
2/ This great @Forbes piece explains that S.Ct. case and also Fokker. #1e5257fe6f0a">https://www.forbes.com/sites/markchenoweth/2020/05/14/judge-sullivan-disregards-two-controlling-precedents-by-appointing-amicus-in-flynn-case/ #1e5257fe6f0a">https://www.forbes.com/sites/mar...
3/ I didn& #39;t mention that case in my piece today @FDRLST https://thefederalist.com/2020/05/14/the-constitution-requires-judge-emmet-sullivans-lawless-amicus-order-against-michael-flynn-be-overturned/">https://thefederalist.com/2020/05/1... And there is a very good reason why.
4/ The Supreme Court was addressing the situation where an amicus supplants the parties, while recognizing the appropriate use of amicus. But in the Flynn case the issue isn& #39;t that the amicus Sullivan appointed & suggests he will allow are overtaking parties& #39; arguments.
5/ The problem is Sullivan lacks ANY authority to deny motion to dismiss w/ prejudice and as a corollary lacks authority to investigation the DOJ& #39;s rationale. What he cannot do directly he cannot do via an amicus. The Fokker case makes clear Sullivan cannot do that.
6/ And while Fokker isn& #39;t a S.Ct. case, as the other case is, it doesn& #39;t matter. D.Ct. are BOUND to follow the precedent of the circuit in which they sit. The D.C. D.Ct. is in the D.C. Circuit and MUST follow Fokker.
7/ So, in short, the problem is not that Sullivan appointed/allows amicus; the problem is that sullivan is acting beyond his powers in violation of the constitutional separation of powers by intruding in the Executive Branch& #39;s function.
8/8 Sullivan has made this a case much bigger than Flynn. Sullivan has thrown the gauntlet down on the DOJ. Barr must act. END
