this is in correct.
Facts were not in dispute. Everyone agreed Sullivan didn't have the authority to chose to continue the case. He had to dismiss it. Sullivan's argument was it was premature to seek a writ of mandamus.
The other issue at hand was the amici. Sullivan says it was for over sight.
Appellate Court says irreparable harm to defendant and Government if allowed to drag on.
Amici appointment is abuse of power but moot anyway after directing the case be dismissed.
The only issue this ruling allows is if being there was premature or not. That is the argument Sullivan came with and he can't have a new one now.
He can only take their opinion and say if it was in error to rule based on his premature argument