This is rather unusual, to say the least.
From the Washington Post:
A U.S. judge put on hold the Justice Department’s move to drop charges against Michael Flynn, saying he expects independent groups and legal experts to argue against the bid to exonerate President Trump’s former national security adviser of lying to the FBI.
U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan said in an order Tuesday that he expects individuals and organizations will seek to intervene in the politically charged case. Having others weigh in could preface more aggressive steps that the federal judge in Washington could take, including — as many outside observers have called for — holding a hearing to consider what to do.
In a blatantly corrupt and politically-motivated move, Trump’s appointed Attorney General William Barr quietly ordered federal prosecutors to drop the case against convicted felon and liar Michael Flynn, who allegedly abetted Trump’s assumption to power by conspiring with agents of the Russian government, specifically with a view towards easing American sanctions following the assistance provided to Trump by Russia during the 2016 election.
The “Justice” Department under Barr decided to drop the matter in the midst of the COVID19 pandemic, ostensibly with the thought that it could surreptitiously subvert the rule of law while Americans were pre-occupied with the day-to-day travails of surviving the economic and public health calamity the Trump administration has itself abetted with its callous negligence and disregard.
Flynn had already acknowledged his guilt by way of plea.
As reported in the Post:
The action by Sullivan, a veteran 72-year-old jurist with a national reputation for advocating defendants’ rights to full government disclosure of evidence, appears to rule out immediate action on the Justice Department’s decision to reverse course and throw out Flynn’s December 2017 guilty plea.
Flynn’s lawyers vigorously protested the Judge’s ruling, but, unfortunately for them, it is based on a well-established rule of procedure permitting the Judge to hear evidence from outside sources which might not be as corrupt and politically tainted as the current United States Justice Department.
Legal experts said the order allows others to file objections to the Justice Department’s move and could open the door for adversarial proceedings in which one or more attorneys argue against the Justice Department. It would also permit, if the judge chooses, to require both sides to produce evidence and revisit the case for and against Flynn.
On balance, it will be a good thing for Americans to “revisit” that evidence, particularly with the November election in such close proximity.