Federal judge drops corruption case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams

A federal judge on Wednesday formally dismissed the corruption case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams, granting the controversial request from the Justice Department that generated a public outcry and spurred the largest mass resignation of senior federal prosecutors in decades.

The order from U.S. Judge Dale Ho brings an end to the case against Adams, who had pleaded not guilty to conspiracy, bribery, wire fraud and other charges following his indictment last year.

He was scheduled to go on trial in April until new leadership at the Justice Department under the Trump administration ordered prosecutors in New York in February to drop the case.

That directive from Emil Bove, then the acting U.S. Deputy Attorney General, touched off a public uproar and intense internal pushback.

The acting U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Danielle Sassoon, refused to follow Bove’s directive, saying she saw no “good-faith basis” for dismissing the case. She resigned instead of abandoning the Adams prosecution.

One other prosecutor in New York and five attorneys tied to the Justice Department’s public integrity unit in Washington, D.C., also resigned rather than carrying out Bove’s order.

Adams’ attorney rejected allegations that the mayor had struck a deal with the Justice Department to help the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement policies in return for dropping the case against the mayor.

Judge Ho declined to immediately dismiss the case and instead appointed an outside counsel, Paul Clement, to examine the legal arguments and assist the court in its decision-making.

Clement, who served as solicitor general during the George W. Bush administration, advised the court to dismiss the case with prejudice, meaning the charges would be permanently dropped. The government had proposed dismissing the case without prejudice, a scenario that would allow prosecutors to renew the case in the future.

“Such an ongoing prospect of re-indictment is particularly problematic when it comes to the sensitive task of prosecuting public officials,” Clement wrote in his brief for the court.

“There is an inherent risk that once an indictment has been procured, the prospect of re-indictment could create the appearance, if not the reality, that the actions of a public official are being driven by concerns about staying in the good graces of the federal executive, rather than the best interests of his constituents.”