By Robert Willmann
Without saying which of the 10 judges doing the rehearing wrote the majority opinion, the federal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit switched the earlier three-judge panel decision and denied the request of Michael Flynn for a mandamus order that would have directed the trial court judge Emmett Sullivan to grant the motion by the Department of Justice to dismiss the criminal prosecution of Flynn .
The 18-page majority opinion by seven judges said it was "per curium", which does not identify which judge was assigned and wrote the majority opinion. Judge Thomas B. Griffith wrote a two-page concurring opinion. Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson wrote a 10-page dissenting opinion, which was joined by Judge Neomi Rao. Judge Rao wrote a 30-page dissenting opinion, which was joined by Judge Henderson. Judge Rao had written the original decision, joined by Judge Henderson, which granted the mandamus and vacated the appointment of John Gleeson by Sullivan to oppose the granting of the motion to dismiss. Judge Robert Wilkins wrote a dissenting opinion in that earlier panel decision. Here is the en banc decision of today–
There are colloquial expressions that precisely describe the majority's decision denying a mandamus, but it would not be proper for me to say them in the presence of ladies.
I have to get on the road now, but today's opinions and order are here for you to read and download as desired. I anticipate that Flynn's lawyers will ask the U.S. Supreme Court if it will agree to hear the mandamus action.
 Order by the en banc court denying a writ of mandamus.