In a major victory for the rule of law, a federal appeals court ordered a rogue judge to dismiss the criminal case against former national security advisor General Michael Flynn.

A federal appeals court Wednesday ordered a judge to dismiss the charge against President Donald Trump’s former national security advisor Michael Flynn, who had pleaded guilty to lying to FBI agents.

The 2-1 ruling by the panel of appellate judges stressed the power of the Department of Justice, which has sought to drop its prosecution of Flynn, to make criminal charging decisions given its status as part of the executive branch.

The ruling came in response to a request for a so-called writ of mandamus, or judicial directive, from Flynn’s lawyers.

The defense attorneys asked the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit after the trial judge did not promptly grant the Justice Department’s highly unusual motion to dismiss the case. [CNBC]

The rogue judge in the case, Emmet Sullivan, took the highly unusual step of hiring a lawyer to explain his indefensible position that the judiciary could usurp the role of prosecutor.

Instead, Judge Emmet Sullivan appointed a lawyer, former federal judge John Gleeson, to make arguments to him about why the case should not be tossed out. Sullivan also said he would consider arguments for or against the dismissal request from third parties not connected to the case.

Appeals court Judge Neomi Rao, in the decision for the majority Wednesday, wrote that the case is about whether a trial court judge can prolong a criminal case and appoint a so-called friend of the court such as Gleeson as a legal advisor after prosecutors have “explained why a prosecution is no longer in the public interest.”

“On that, both the Constitution and [prior legal] cases are clear: he may not,” wrote Rao, who was appointed by Trump. [CNBC]

President Trump and Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany reacted:

It is not clear that the case is completely over, as the rogue judge could try to ask for an appeal:

It is not clear whether the ruling will be the last word in the case. A judge on the appeals court could ask for a review by all the court’s judges. Such an review, known as an en banc hearing, is not usually granted in the D.C. circuit unless a case “involves a question of exceptional importance,” or is needed to “maintain uniformity of the court’s decisions,”

Like the Justice Department’s dismissal request, Sullivan’s lack of immediate agreement with it and Flynn’s request that an appeals court force Sullivan to comply were extremely unusual. An en banc review would add to the already odd nature of Flynn’s case. [CNBC]

It is well past time, in this great nation, for rogue judges to be reined in and brought to heel, and for that reason we applaud this decision.