It’s been a bit of a tussle between presidential administrations, DOJ lawyers, and the mayor himself, but a federal judge has now formally dismissed the charges against New York Mayor Eric Adams — with prejudice.
U.S. District Judge Dale E. Ho, of the Southern District of New York, dismissed the case against Adams with prejudice, meaning it can’t be brought back again.
The Biden Justice Department alleged that Adams inappropriately used his position as mayor to solicit illegal campaign contributions and luxury travel from foreign nationals from Turkey, businessmen and others.
Following Trump’s inauguration, then-acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove directed prosecutors in the Southern District of New York to dismiss the charges against Adams.
A month after the indictment – which some political observers described as “disproportionate,” Adams was surprisingly pushing back on the “fascist” rhetoric against Donald Trump, saying he had also faced similar false accusations. Around the same time, Trump noted that he predicted Adams’ indictment well ahead of it due to the fact that Adams had pushed back on the Biden administration, saying they should be doing more to help.
Fast forward four months, and Trump’s Justice Department wants the federal charges against Adams dismissed:
“You are directed, as authorized by the Attorney General, to dismiss the pending charges in United States v. Adams…as soon as is practicable, subject to the following conditions: the defendant must agree in writing to dismissal without prejudice; the defendant must agree in writing that he is not a prevailing party under the Hyde Amendment…and the matter shall be reviewed by the confirmed U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York, following the November 2025 mayoral election, based on consideration of all relevant factors,” [acting U.S. Deputy Attorney General Emil] Bove wrote in a memo.
“The Justice Department has reached this conclusion without assessing the strength of the evidence or the legal theories on which the case is based, which are issues on which we defer to the U.S. Attorney’s Office at this time,” Bove continued.
But the acting US Attorney for SDNY, Danielle Sassoon, refused to drop the case and, following a testy exchange of letters between her office and DOJ, tendered her resignation. Then, her replacement followed suit.
Judge Dale Ho then canceled the trial setting and asked for further briefing and arguments on the matter. Several outside legal groups joined the fray, as well.
Now, Ho has issued an opinion and order dismissing the case with prejudice. Interestingly, Ho’s opinion concludes with this:
Ultimately, because the decision to discontinue a prosecution belongs primarily to a political branch of government, it is the public’s judgment, and not this Court’s, that truly matters. The Court can play only a limited role under Rule 48(a), including by providing a measure of transparency, which in turn may promote public accountability:
[T]he public has a generalized interest in the processes through which prosecutors make decisions about whom to prosecute that a court can serve by inquiring into the reasons for a requested dismissal. While this interest cannot rise to the substantive ability to compel a prosecution to proceed, it does argue in favor of allowing a court to force prosecutors to publicly reveal their reasons for not proceeding before granting a requested dismissal. Bringing these decisions into the open may, in turn, lead to attempts by the public to influence these decisions through democratic channels.
Thus, it appears that Judge Ho is at least mindful of the separation of powers, something many of his judicial brethren have seemingly struggled with of late.
One added note: The DOJ sought to have the case dismissed without prejudice — meaning it could be brought again at some later date. Ho declined to grant that request, opting instead to dismiss it with prejudice, and noting:
In light of DOJ’s rationales, dismissing the case without prejudice would create the unavoidable perception that the Mayor’s freedom depends on his ability to carry out the immigration enforcement priorities of the administration, and that he might be more beholden to the demands of the federal government than to the wishes of his own constituents. That appearance is inevitable, and it counsels in favor of dismissal with prejudice.
Thus, in some respects, he split the baby.
