A federal judge in New York dismissed on Wednesday the charges of corruption against Mayor Eric Adams, but not in the way the Trump administration wanted.
The judge is dismissed the case with prejudice, which means that it cannot be revived.
The Department of Justice sought to dismiss the case to free Adams to cooperate with the mayor’s immigration agenda, however, the department wanted the case to dismiss without prejudice, which means that it could be brought again.
Adams was accused last year in the South District of New York for five positions in an alleged long -standing conspiracy related to inadequate benefits, illegal campaign contributions and an cover -up attempt. He had declared himself innocent.
Ho declined to support the desired result of the Department of Justice.
“In the light of the foundations of the Department of Justice, dismissing the case without prejudice would create the inevitable perception that the mayor’s freedom depends on his ability to carry out the priorities of application of the immigration of the administration, and that he could be more contaminated with the demands of the federal government than the wishes of his own offices.
The Mayor of New York City, Eric Adams, speaks during a press conference at the City of Manhattan in New York City, on March 24, 2025.
Jeenah Moon/Reuters, file
The opinion of 78 pages of Ho dismantled the declared justification of the Department of Justice for dismissal: so Adams could focus on the immigration priorities of the Trump administration.
The judge said he could not find another example of the government by dismissing charges against an elected official to allow the official to facilitate federal policy objectives.
“The justification for the application of the Imigration of the DOJ is unprecedented and impressive in its sweep,” Ho said. “And the DOJ statement that has a” virtually not revisable “license to dismiss charges on this basis is disturbing in its breadth, which implies that public officials can receive a special dispensation if they comply with the policy priorities of the titular administration. This suggestion is fundamentally incompatible with the basic prize of equal justice under the law.”
Ho also made it clear that he was not weighing the facts of the case and said that his decision “is not about whether Mayor Adams is innocent or guilty.”
Even so, the Adams lawyer celebrated the decision to withdraw the charges without the fear of being relieved after the mayor elections in November, since the Department of Justice had threatened.
“The case against Eric Adams should never have appeared first, and finally that case has gone forever,” said Alex Spiro, Adams lawyer, in a statement. “Since day 1, the mayor has maintained his innocence and now has prevailed justice for Eric Adams and New York.”
The Mayor of New York City, Eric Adams, appears before a Chamber Supervision Committee and a government reform hearing with the mayors of the city of Sanctuary in Capitol Hill, on Wednesday, March 5, 2025, in Washington.
Rod Lamkey/AP, file
The decision to dismiss the charges occurred a few days after the Adams lawyer had pressed to dismiss them before the deadline of April 3 for the requests to be presented so that the candidates for the mayor’s office are presented in the primary vote of June. Adams has said that he will apply as a Democrat in the primaries despite the criticisms of the opponents who have approached the Trump administration in recent months, meeting with the president and attending its inauguration instead of the scheduled events of Martin Luther King’s day in the city.
HO’s decision followed Paul Clement’s recommendation, who served as Attorney General under the Bush Administration and was designated by HO to make an independent evaluation of the case.
“An unprepassed dismissal creates a palpable sensation that the prosecution described in the accusation and approved by a large jury could be renewed, a perspective that hangs like Damocles’ proverbial sword about the accused,” said Clement.
The eventual dismissal occurred after a scathing letter from the United States prosecutor, Danielle Sassoon, to the United States attorney general, Pam Bondi, suggesting that the interim attached attorney general Emil Bove and other members of the leadership of the DOJ are explicitly aware of a pro quo suggested by Adams’ lawyers, saying that the vocal support of Adams of immigration of the reports of the ADAMS reports.
Sassoon, who was appointed by President Donald Trump, resigned in protest along with several other officials of the Department of Justice.
Spiro, Adams’s lawyer, resisted the notion of a quid pro quo after Sassoon’s resignation: “The idea that there was a quid pro quo is a total lie. We did not offer anything and the department did not ask us for anything.”
