Skip to main content
Skip to main content

DOJ’s motion to dismiss Flynn charges ‘inconsistent with the ample evidence,’ says law professor

Northwestern Pritzker School of Law professor and former federal prosecutor Juliet Sorensen says the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) motion to dismiss charges against former national security adviser Michael Flynn is inconsistent with the ample evidence. 

In an open letter, approximately 2,000 former DOJ staffers criticized the department’s motionto dismiss the charges against Flynn, who plead guilty in December 2017 to lying to the FBI about his communications with the Russian ambassador to the United States. The former DOJ staffers are calling for Attorney General William Barr to step down. Sorensen is one of the signatories of the statement.She, along with constitutional law professor Ronald Allen, are available to comment on the Flynn case. 

Sorensen is a clinical professor of law and executive director of Injustice Watch. From 2003-2010, Sorensen was an assistant U.S. attorney in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Chicago, focusing on fraud and public corruption. She can be reached at

Quote from Professor Sorensen
“The Department of Justice’s motion to dismiss the charges against Michael Flynn after he has entered a plea of guilty to making material false statements to the FBI is inconsistent with the ample evidence that the investigation was well-founded. The district judge can and should closely examine the Department’s stated rationale for dismissing the charges prior to ruling on the motion.”

Allen, the John Henry Wigmore Professor of Law and a constitutional and criminal law expert, is also available. He can be reached at