After Flynn’s counsel seemed to hint in his brief that Flynn didn’t realize he had to tell the truth, Sullivan went after Flynn, whose guilty plea entails repudiating such excuses. “I cannot recall an instance of a court ever accepting a guilty plea from someone who did not maintain he was guilty,” Sullivan said. “I do not intend to start today.”

He asked Flynn and his counsel if Flynn understood his obligation to tell the truth. Yes. Did he needed to be reminded of the right to a lawyer or to tell the truth? No. Was he entrapped? No. With that he swiped aside the Fox News hosts' and talk radio jocks' jabbering about entrapment. Sullivan, for good measure, told Flynn, “I’m not hiding my disgust” at Flynn’s crimes. He told Flynn, “Arguably, you sold your country out.”

AD

AD

Sullivan’s performance was a bold rebuke of the far-right conspirators and those who think secretly assisting a foreign government (and getting richly rewarded for it) is no big deal. For those who complain that Sullivan upset the apple cart in interfering with a carefully constructed plea deal, we can only say that such a view is inconsistent with the notion of an independent judiciary. It was Sullivan’s duty to bring his own judgment to bear.

Sullivan then struck another blow for the rule of law. He struck down the administration’s unilateral, blanket denial of asylum to migrants claiming their lives were endangered by gang or domestic violence. He found the administration’s action “inconsistent with the intent of Congress as articulated in the [Immigration and Nationalization Act]. And because it is the will of Congress — not the whims of the executive — that determines the standard for expedited removal, the court finds that those policies are unlawful.”

AD

AD

First, the general rule is arbitrary and capricious because there is no legal basis for an effective categorical ban on domestic violence and gang-related claims. Second, such a general rule runs contrary to the individualized analysis required by the INA. Under the current immigration laws, the credible fear interviewer must prepare a case-specific factually intensive analysis for each alien. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.30(e)(requiring individual analysis including material facts stated by the applicant, and additional facts relied upon by officer). Credible fear determinations, like requests for asylum in general, must be resolved based on the particular facts and circumstances of each case.

Once more Sullivan demonstrated that it’s the courts that have the power to check a rogue executive branch. The president and his administration must enforce existing law and prevail upon Congress if they wish to change it. Government by whim is antithetical to our constitutional system.

For standing up for the rule of law, we can say, well done, Judge Sullivan.