Dropping the Eric Adams prosecution as apparent barter

Judge Dale Ho dismissed the indictment with prejudice on April 2, 2025, rather than without prejudice as the Justice Department sought, so that the charges could not be held over the mayor. Seven prosecutors resigned rather than seek the dismissal, beginning the Public Integrity Section's collapse.

On February 10, 2025, acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove, previously Trump's personal defense lawyer, directed the Southern District of New York to dismiss the five-count federal corruption indictment against New York Mayor Eric Adams. His memo said the Justice Department 'reached this conclusion without assessing the strength of the evidence or the legal theories on which [the case] is based,' and cited Adams's 'restricted' ability to help enforce the administration's immigration policies. Acting U.S. Attorney Danielle Sassoon refused and resigned, writing that 'Adams's attorneys repeatedly urged what amounted to a quid pro quo, indicating that Adams would be in a position to assist with the Department's enforcement priorities only if the indictment were dismissed,' and that granting it would be 'a breathtaking and dangerous precedent.'

When the case moved to Washington, five more Justice Department attorneys resigned on February 13 rather than file the motion: the Deputy Assistant Attorney General who oversaw the Public Integrity Section, the section's acting head, John Keller, and three other section attorneys. SDNY prosecutor Hagan Scotten resigned on February 14, writing to Bove: 'I expect you will eventually find someone who is enough of a fool, or enough of a coward, to file your motion. But it was never going to be me.' The department filed the motion that day, after at least seven prosecutors had resigned. After the department decided to seek dismissal, Adams announced he would let ICE operate on Rikers Island. The resignations began the Public Integrity Section's collapse (PRG-11).

On April 2, 2025, Judge Dale Ho dismissed the case with prejudice, not the without-prejudice dismissal the department sought, which would have left the charges hanging over Adams. He wrote: 'Everything here smacks of a bargain: dismissal of the Indictment in exchange for immigration policy concessions,' and that a without-prejudice dismissal risked the perception that the mayor 'might be more beholden to the demands of the federal government than to the wishes of his own constituents.' Adams's lawyers and Bove both told the court there was no quid pro quo; Bove added that even if there were, it would not matter to the motion.

Documented

Adjudicated commentary (Judge Ho dismissed with prejudice, rebuking the bargain); contested

Bove order 2025-02-10; resignations 2025-02-13/14; dismissed with prejudice 2025-04-02