How the Federal Judge in the Eric Adams Case Could Refuse to Dismiss
The Trump Justice Department’s highly unusual move to dismiss Mayor Eric Adams’ corruption case now goes before a federal judge — and one good government group is already asking the judge to slam on the brakes.
A Corrupt Quid Pro Quo Bargain?
On Monday, a lawyer for Common Cause, the non-partisan government watchdog, demanded that Manhattan Federal Judge Dale Ho reject the Justice Department’s motion to toss the case, calling the arrangement a "corrupt quid pro quo bargain" and arguing that terminating the case against Adams is "contrary to the public’s interest."
A Quid Pro Quo Arrangement
A letter motion filed by attorney Nathaniel Akerman, a former Manhattan federal prosecutor, contends that the agreement gives the Justice Department control over the mayor’s actions, noting that the motion was made "without prejudice" and allows the case to potentially be reopened after the November election.
"This qualification on the dismissal provides the Trump administration with potent leverage over Mr. Adams to ensure he follows the administration’s directives or else the indictment will be reinstated," Akerman wrote.
A Concerned Justice Department
Last week, seven federal prosecutors, including Acting Manhattan U.S. Attorney Danielle Sassoon, refused Bove’s order to dismiss the case and resigned.
Sassoon fought to keep the case alive, pointing out in a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi that Bove had not taken a position on the merits of the case and noting that although Bove denied "any intention to exchange leniency in this case for Adams’ assistance in enforcing federal law, that is the nature of the bargain."
A Quid Pro Quo in the Public Interest?
Daniel Richman, a former Manhattan federal prosecutor and a professor at Columbia Law School, in an op-ed for the New York Times, wrote that Judge Ho could adopt Sassoon’s argument and find that "a quid pro quo is not in the public interest."
"Another thing (the judge) can do is — and the cases are actually quite strong — is make sure a dismissal isn’t being done for the purpose of harassing a defendant," Richman wrote. "To the extent that one worries with some basis that the charges, if dismissed without prejudice, are being held over him to coerce his cooperation in the immigration enforcement — you could say this is harassment."
Related
Related
A Possible Solution
Akerman argued that there’s "overwhelming evidence from DOJ’s own internal documents showing that the dismissal of the Adams indictment is not in the public interest and is part of a corrupt quid pro quo between the Mayor Adams and the Trump administration."
Conclusion
How this will play out remains to be seen. The Justice Department is required to provide some explanation for its decision, and Judge Ho could hold a hearing, possibly this week, requiring Bove to appear in his courtroom in Lower Manhattan and spell out in detail how the decision came to be.
FAQs
- What is a quid pro quo arrangement?
A quid pro quo arrangement is a deal in which one party agrees to do something in exchange for something else, often in a corrupt or unethical manner. - What is the Rinaldi v. U.S. case?
Rinaldi v. U.S. is a 1977 case in which a federal court rejected a prosecutor’s request to withdraw a case against a man convicted of robbery in state court, then prosecuted again in federal court. - What is the current status of the case?
The case is currently in limbo, with the Justice Department seeking to dismiss it without prejudice, allowing it to be reopened after the November election.
