U.S. District Judge Dale Ho on Wednesday dismissed New York City Mayor Eric Adams’ corruption indictment with prejudice, meaning the case cannot be revived in the future.
The Trump Justice Department had moved to dismiss the Democrat’s case “without prejudice” to have the option of reviving it, which would have given President Donald Trump leverage over Adams as the Trump administration seeks local cooperation to enforce its immigration priorities.
The Biden-appointed judge called the Trump DOJ’s approach “both unprecedented and breathtaking in its sweep.”
Ho summarized the DOJ’s position as the case should be dismissed because “(1) it is tainted with impropriety; (2) it is detrimental to national security and immigration enforcement; and (3) it was a weak case to begin with — but the Court should also allow DOJ to bring the prosecution back at any time, for essentially any reason.” The judge wrote that he “cannot and will not authorize such a result.”
“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,” Ho wrote. “That appearance is inevitable, and it counsels in favor of dismissal with prejudice.”
The Biden-appointed judge called the Trump DOJ’s approach “both unprecedented and breathtaking in its sweep” and “fundamentally incompatible with the basic promise of equal justice under law.”
But while he rejected the DOJ’s argument for how it wanted to dismiss the case, the judge ultimately felt constrained to dismiss it.
First, Ho said, the court’s main role here is protecting the defendant’s rights, and rejecting the motion outright would’ve gone against that principle. And second, the judge noted that he’d have no way to force the prosecution even if he wanted to.
“A court cannot force the Department of Justice to prosecute a defendant,” he wrote.
Ho called the Trump DOJ’s appearances-of-impropriety rationale “not just thin, but pretextual.”
Several federal prosecutors resigned rather than move to dismiss the case as ordered by then-acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove, a former Trump criminal defense lawyer who appeared before Ho at a Feb. 19 hearing himself to argue for the dismissal. (Since then, fellow former Trump criminal defense lawyer Todd Blanche has been confirmed as deputy attorney general and Bove became the principal associate DAG.)
Rejecting the Trump DOJ’s contention that New York prosecutors had tainted the case, Ho wrote Wednesday that that argument was “unsupported by any objective evidence.” He said the record indicated that prosecutors followed all appropriate DOJ guidelines and that there’s “no evidence—zero—that they had any improper motives.” Indeed, Ho called the Trump DOJ’s appearances-of-impropriety rationale “not just thin, but pretextual.”
Adams agreed to a “without prejudice” dismissal at that Feb. 19 hearing. But rather than immediately approve the deal that both sides said wasn’t a quid pro quo, Ho appointed an outside lawyer to present additional arguments for the court to consider before ruling. The judge noted that there is typically adversarial testing of legal arguments, so appointing a third party would help present such testing here, given the unusual agreement between Adams and the government. Yet, before that outside argument was submitted for Ho’s consideration, Adams on Feb. 26 moved to dismiss his charges “with prejudice,” meaning the case would be done for good. He claimed prosecutorial misconduct and the tainting of his presumption of innocence due to negative information about him emerging in leaked letters from prosecutors who resigned rather than move to dismiss his case without prejudice as Bove instructed. Ho noted in his ruling Wednesday that the DOJ hadn’t opposed Adams’ motion, which effectively waived the government’s objection to permanent dismissal. On March 7, the lawyer appointed by Ho, Paul Clement — a top Supreme Court attorney who served as solicitor general during the George W. Bush administration — filed his brief on the matter. Clement supported Adams’ bid for dismissal with prejudice, writing that a without-prejudice dismissal “creates a palpable sense that the prosecution outlined in the indictment and approved by a grand jury could be renewed, a prospect that hangs like the proverbial Sword of Damocles over the accused.” Clement said that prospect “is particularly problematic when it comes to the sensitive task of prosecuting public officials.” While Ho didn’t express an opinion on Wednesday about the underlying charges or whether they should move forward, he wrote that DOJ’s rationale is “inconsistent with a decision to leave the charges in the Indictment hanging like the proverbial Sword of Damocles over the Mayor.” If dismissal is to be granted, then it should be with prejudice, the judge wrote, citing the importance of protecting “a defendant’s right to be free from prosecutorial harassment.” Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and lawsuits against the Trump administration.
Jordan Rubin is the Deadline: Legal Blog writer. He was a prosecutor for the New York County District Attorney’s Office in Manhattan and is the author of “Bizarro," a book about the secret war on synthetic drugs. Before he joined MS NOW, he was a legal reporter for Bloomberg Law.
Latest Post
Recommended
