Whether a district judge has authority to deny a government motion to dismiss with prejudice and whether a criminal defendant has standing to challenge such a denial

Following the Executive Order of January 20, 2025, Granting Pardons and Commutation of Sentences for Certain Offenses Relating to the Events at or Near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021, the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia moved to dismiss the pending charges against Mr. Wroblewski and other so -called “January Sixth” defendants with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 48(a) . At least four district judges, including the one in this case, expressed their frustration with the government’s decision . They denied the motions to dismiss with prejudice, instead dismissing without prejudice , thereby preserving the possibility of future prosecutions. Mr. Wroblewski responded by filing a renewed motion to dismiss with prejudice based on the government’s prior motion seeking the same relief. The district court denied the motion as moot. Mr. Wroblewski filed a notice of appeal. The D.C. Circuit dismissed the appeal, concluding that regardless of whether the case was considered an appeal or a petition for writ of mandamus, he did not have standing to challenge the district court’s order. The questions for review are whether: 1. A district judge has authority under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a) to deny a government motion to dismiss with prejudice, supported by the defendant, based on the judge’s disagreement with the Executive Branch’s exercise of prosecutorial discretion. 2. A criminal defendant has standing to challenge – either via appeal or a petition for a writ of mandamus – a district judge’s denial of his or her motion to dismiss with prejudice when the government has sought such relief as a matter of Executive discretion.