Any appellate decision taking unprecedented measures to stop “irreparable harms” and “irregular” conduct is newsworthy. However, those admonishments were not describing Flynn's conduct but that of his trial judge, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan. https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/06/24/dismissal-michael-flynn-case-result-judge-emmet-sullivans-injustice-column/3250896001/

The ruling in this case is unlikely to force any real circumspection by legal analysts. Nuanced legal questions quickly evaporate in an age of rage. Conflicting case law is dismissed in favor of the clarity demanded by echo journalism. The message here could not be clearer.

...The issue for Judge Sullivan is whether such an appeal advances any substantive legal purpose. Despite Gleeson's filing, it was absurd to argue that Sullivan should send a person to jail when the prosecutors are denying the basis for the crime...

...Two judges were so alarmed that they ordered a dismissal. The judicious course is to end the controversy, particularly when the ultimate conclusion was never in serious doubt. Otherwise, the court seems too eager for a hearing that will shed more heat than light.