Post Content
Live Updates: Judge Weighs Request to Dismiss Eric Adams Corruption Charges
The acting deputy attorney general, who is seeking to end the prosecution of New York’s mayor, is appearing before a seemingly skeptical judge at a hearing in Manhattan federal court.
Jonah E. BromwichBenjamin Weiser and Hurubie Meko
Reporting from the courthouse
The Washington prosecutors who are seeking a dismissal of corruption charges against New York City’s mayor, Eric Adams, are defending their request in a Manhattan court in front of a federal judge unlikely to rubber-stamp their effort.
Last week, the acting deputy attorney general, Emil Bove III, directed prosecutors to seek an end to the prosecution of Mr. Adams, prompting mass resignations at the Justice Department. In an order on Tuesday, the judge, Dale E. Ho, told prosecutors and Mr. Adams’s lawyers to be prepared to explain why the government was seeking to throw out the case.
Judge Ho began the hearing Wednesday by saying that he was aware of his limited authority to order that prosecutors continue the case, but wanted to make sure he understood “basic things.”
“I have a few questions,” he said, adding that he wanted to “proceed carefully.”
Mr. Bove, a former criminal defense lawyer for President Trump who is appearing on behalf of the government in the hearing, earlier told prosecutors that his directive was not based on the case’s legal merits. The case, he said, was impeding the mayor’s ability to aid Mr. Trump’s program of mass deportation.
That move shook the legal community and led to calls for the mayor’s resignation, just months before he was scheduled to go to trial.
Judge Ho acknowledges that a federal rule says the executive branch is best suited to decide whether to drop a prosecution and that a judge should not meddle unless a dismissal is “clearly contrary to manifest public interest.” But he seemed prepared to use Wednesday’s hearing to inquire into that public-interest question.
Before the hearing began Wednesday afternoon, a handful of protesters were gathered outside of the courthouse, holding signs that said “NO TRUMP PUPPETS RUNNING NYC” and “No Eric Adams, No Cuomo, No Corruption.”
A sole counterprotester, known as “Trump Santa,” held a reversible sign that said “MAGA Forever.”
Inside of the courtroom, Mr. Adams sat looking straight ahead, his hands in his lap. He sat between his lawyers, Alex Spiro and William Burke.
Here’s what else to know:
-
Refusing to obey: At least eight prosecutors have resigned over Mr. Bove’s orders, including Danielle R. Sassoon, the interim head of Manhattan’s U.S. attorney’s office. Ms. Sassoon accused Mr. Adams of offering to use his position to aid Mr. Trump’s immigration agenda in exchange for a dismissal of his case, saying in a letter to the U.S. attorney general that the arrangement “amounted to a quid pro quo.” Alex Spiro, a lawyer for Mr. Adams, has denied that any deal was offered, as has Mr. Bove.
-
Investigation requests: Judge Ho faces a flurry of requests that he investigate the government’s actions. Three former U.S. attorneys asked the judge in a filing on Monday to conduct an extensive inquiry into whether the motion was a pretext for securing the mayor’s help on immigration.
-
The judge: Judge Ho, previously a leading civil rights lawyer, was appointed by President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and confirmed in 2023. He narrowly made it onto the bench after a contentious confirmation process that ended in a 50-to-49 vote by the U.S. Senate. The Adams case was randomly handed to Judge Ho, who has scant experience presiding over criminal cases, but a reputation as a tough litigator and a fierce advocate for civil liberties.
-
The governor is watching: Critics of the mayor have argued that Mr. Adams is now beholden to Mr. Trump and cannot serve the city. Gov. Kathy Hochul, who has the power to remove the mayor from office, met on Tuesday with city officials and others to discuss whether she should take such action. Here are five factors that could shape her decision.
Devlin Barrett and Olivia Bensimon contributed reporting.
Judge Ho asks Bove about his assertion that the prosecution is interfering with the 2025 mayoral election. Bove responds that the mayor’s very presence in court today “is part of the problem,” adding that the case is hindering the performance of the mayor’s duties. As has been pointed out, it is highly unusual to abandon a case against a public official simply because that official is high-ranking enough to have serious responsibilities with which a prosecution would interfere.
Bove says that there are several ongoing investigations at the Department of Justice in which the purpose of the Adams prosecution is being scrutinized. That may refer to investigations into prosecutors who resigned rather than agree to seek the case’s dismissal. Bove said last week that those inquiries would be initiated.
Advertisement
William Rashbaum
Even if the case against the mayor is dismissed with prejudice, meaning that prosecutors will not be able to bring those charges again, that doesn’t mean that the government will no longer wield any leverage over the mayor — or, in the words of my colleague Dana Rubinstein, keep him under Trump’s thumb. That’s because the Manhattan prosecutors had indicated last week that they had been planning to bring an additional charge of obstruction of justice against the mayor. They could do that no matter the terms of any possible dismissal the judge may grant, meaning with or without prejudice.
Bove’s presence alone at the government table is remarkable, given the crisis he provoked at the Justice Department over this case by demanding other lawyers sign off on this motion. Those demands led to the resignations of eight prosecutors. For Bove to now be solo in court will strike many Justice Dept. veterans as the height of folly, since he could have always taken this approach, without the resignations and implied threats of firings.
Judge Ho begins to ask about the “appearances of impropriety” that Bove has referenced. He makes clear that he is not “taking issue” with the government’s position, merely seeking to better understand it.
There was a quick moment just now in which Bove seemed to acknowledge to Judge Ho that he believes the judge has little power to do anything other than grant the prosecution’s motion to dismiss. Bove is keeping his tone polite, but there is a latent tension here as the Justice Department seeks to abandon this case in a highly unusual way.
Advertisement
Judge Ho establishes that the government’s motion to dismiss is not predicated on the strength of the case. Bove agrees that that’s correct, and the judge asks him for a high-level explanation of the rationale behind the motion. Bove begins to explain. He says, as he has said in writing, that the case has “appearances of impropriety” and represents an abuse of the criminal justice system.
The judge’s focus on how and when the charges could be reinstated may be a clue to a potential resolution of this case. One of the most controversial aspects of the motion to dismiss charges is the provision that the charges could be reinstated against the mayor. Critics say that would make Adams beholden to Trump, that he would do whatever it took to please Trump so he would not be charged again. Judge Ho could decide to grant the government’s motion to drop the case if prosecutors removed that provision.
That Adams cracked a joke during this hearing represents a stark departure from his demeanor during his arraignment on federal corruption charges in September, when he sat stone-faced throughout.
Adams just made a joke, earning a chuckle from Judge Ho, who had told him that if he is unsure how to answer a question, he can discuss with his lawyers. “I appreciate that” Adams said, adding: “I failed my law class.”
Advertisement
Adams says he understands that the charges could be brought again, adding, “I have not committed a crime and I don’t see them bringing it back. I’m not afraid of that.”
Bove says that while the Department of Justice could revisit the charges against the mayor, “I don’t have any plans for that at this time.” Judge Ho thanks him.
As Bove speaks to his right, Adams sits still, hands in his lap, and looks straight ahead of him. Behind him, the benches of the gallery are full.
The judge asks whether there are any limits to circumstances in which the government could bring charges in the future. This line of questioning is highly relevant: It’s been noted by many commentators that dismissing the case without prejudice effectively gives the Trump Justice Department a means of controlling — or at least influencing — the mayor, who might feel that he would be beholden to the administration.
The fact that Bove affirmed that the charges could be brought again is a big deal. It is that circumstance — the idea that the charges could be resurrected after the November mayoral election — that has created the notion that Adams will remain under Trump’s thumb through the duration of his first term in office.
Advertisement
The judge, in an understated comment, says that he is not entirely sure what “without prejudice” means in this circumstance. He asks whether these charges could be brought again. Bove says that they could. He is standing at the table as the judge continues to question him.
The judge addresses his first question to Emil Bove, as the parties begin to discuss the fact that prosecutors are seeking dismissal of the case without prejudice.
As the hearing began, the judge said two things were clear to him: that the government is the the first and best judge of whether a prosecution should be terminated, and, notwithstanding that, the case law allows the court to have a limited role in reviewing such a motion.
Having established the mayor’s competence to waive certain rights he has in consenting to dismissal without prejudice of the charges against him, the judge is now asking Adams about the government’s motion to dismiss the case, making sure that the mayor understands the motion.
Advertisement
It’s compelling to hear Adams answer these questions under oath — they are not yet, however, the questions that many New Yorkers might consider asking him.
The mayor is being sworn in, meaning that the testimony he gives going forward will be under oath. He gives his full name: Eric Leroy Adams.
The judge addresses the mayor directly, asking about his consenting to the motion to dismiss. Judge Ho says that Adams is waiving certain rights by consenting and says he wants to make sure, to his satisfaction, that Adams is aware of that and doing so voluntarily.
The judge is asking the parties about the agreement to dismiss the case against Adams without prejudice, meaning prosecutors could bring charges again if they were so inclined.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Judge Dale E. Ho, who on Wednesday will hold a hearing in the foundering corruption case against Mayor Eric Adams of New York, is facing a storm of demands that he look deeply into the federal government’s reasons for seeking to drop the prosecution.
On Monday night, three former U.S. attorneys from New York, New Jersey and Connecticut filed a brief asking the judge to conduct an extensive inquiry into whether the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss the Adams case was in the public interest or merely a pretext for securing the mayor’s cooperation with the Trump administration’s anti-immigration policies.
Earlier in the day, Common Cause, the good-government advocacy group, asked the judge to deny the Justice Department’s motion, which it called part of a “corrupt quid pro quo bargain.” The organization asked the judge to consider appointing an independent special prosecutor to continue the case.
And the New York City Bar Association, with more than 20,000 lawyers as members, said in a statement that the order by a top Justice Department official, Emil Bove III, “cuts to the heart of the rule of law” and asked for a “searching inquiry” into the facts.
The judge, in a two-page order, offered no hint about his position and made it clear that under a federal rule, the executive branch was “the first and presumptively the best judge” of whether to drop a prosecution.
But he also emphasized the court’s independent responsibility. The government’s discretion, he wrote, “should not be judicially disturbed unless clearly contrary to manifest public interest.”
The legal and political crisis encompasses both the Justice Department and New York’s City Hall, calling into question Mr. Adams’s future as well as the independence and probity of federal prosecutions.
On Friday, Mr. Bove signed a formal request that Judge Ho will now consider. The law gives judges scant ability to refuse a prosecutor’s request to drop criminal charges, but Mr. Adams’s case may be an exception.
In their brief, the former U.S. attorneys listed more than a dozen questions they said needed to be answered before Judge Ho could decide whether to approve the department’s request to dismiss the case “without prejudice.” With that outcome, the Trump administration could reinstate the charges.
“What is at stake here is far more than an internal prosecutorial dispute about an individual case,” the former U.S. attorneys wrote. “The public furor that has arisen during the past week raises concerns about respect for the rule of law and the division of power between the executive and judicial branches of government in our nation.”
A lawyer for Mr. Adams, Alex Spiro, disputed suggestions that there had been a deal between the government and Mr. Adams in a letter to Judge Ho on Tuesday morning.
“There was no quid pro quo. Period,” Mr. Spiro wrote.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Danielle R. Sassoon, the interim U.S. attorney for Manhattan who resigned rather than drop the prosecution of Mayor Eric Adams, explained her refusal in a Feb. 12 letter to U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi.
Ms. Sassoon’s letter reads as if it also has another intended audience: Federal District Judge Dale E. Ho, who is holding a hearing Wednesday on the Justice Department’s request to drop the case. In her letter, Ms. Sassoon gave Judge Ho a road map, laying out reasons he might conduct a “searching inquiry.”
Emil Bove III, the Justice Department official who ordered the case dropped, has said he did so without considering the evidence of Mr. Adams’s criminality, which Ms. Sassoon said was substantial.
Mr. Bove said the dismissal was necessary so the mayor could enforce President Trump’s immigration policy. Ms. Sassoon and others have accused Mr. Bove of making an inappropriate deal with Mr. Adams to drop the case in exchange for the mayor’s support for Mr. Trump’s agenda.
Asking Judge Ho to sign off “is likely to backfire,” Ms. Sassoon wrote. “In particular, the court is unlikely to acquiesce in using the criminal process to control the behavior of a political figure.”
She cited case law in which courts have said judges should examine whether such dismissals are “in the public interest,” including a 1977 case in which a judge, David Norton Edelstein, declined to drop the prosecution of alleged price fixing in the sale of malaria drugs derived from South American cinchona bark. Judge Edelstein, who sat in the Southern District of New York, said he was not obligated to “rubber stamp” a request made for inappropriate reasons.
Judge Ho has stressed a need for transparency throughout the Adams case, Ms. Sassoon noted in her letter, writing that he would likely conduct “a lengthy judicial inquiry that is detrimental to the department’s reputation, regardless of outcome.”
A hearing Wednesday in Federal District Court in Manhattan will determine whether the Justice Department will be allowed to drop the criminal charges pending against Mayor Eric Adams. The Justice Department request sent shock waves through the ranks of current and federal prosecutors.
Here are the people who may participate in the extraordinary proceeding.
Mayor Eric Adams
A former police captain who was elected to lead New York City in 2021, Mr. Adams was the city’s 110th mayor and the first in modern history to be indicted on criminal charges while in office.
Mr. Adams, who is charged with bribery, fraud and soliciting illegal foreign campaign donations, insists that he has not committed any crimes and has vowed to remain in office. He continues campaigning for a second term even as calls for his resignation mount and top officials flee his administration. He argues that he was targeted for prosecution because of his criticism of how the Biden administration handled the country’s immigration problems.
Dale E. Ho
Judge Ho was first nominated to the federal bench by former President Joseph R. Biden Jr. in 2021 and then, after failing to win Senate confirmation, renominated in January 2023. He was confirmed by the Senate six months later in a 50-to-49 vote that fell largely along party lines, with some Republicans criticizing statements he had made on social media.
Judge Ho spent about 10 years at the American Civil Liberties Union, where he most recently supervised the group’s voting rights litigation unit. He clerked in the Southern District of New York, where he now presides, and at the New York Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court. He also worked at the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund.
Emil Bove III
Mr. Bove, the Justice Department’s acting No. 2 official, previously represented President Trump as a criminal defense lawyer. Before assuming his current role, he was a partner at Blanche Law, the firm run by Todd Blanche, another of Mr. Trump’s criminal defense lawyers and the president’s nominee to be deputy attorney general.
Earlier in his career, Mr. Bove, who grew up in New York’s Finger Lakes region, spent nine years as a prosecutor in the U.S. attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York. The office, which has been pursuing the case against Mr. Adams, saw several of its top prosecutors resign rather than carry out Mr. Bove’s order to dismiss the charges against the mayor.
Edward P. Sullivan
Mr. Sullivan, the first prosecutor to sign the dismissal request, has had a long career with the Justice Department. He gained some notoriety in 2011 as part of a team that was investigated for possible misconduct in the prosecution of Senator Ted Stevens, Republican of Alaska.
Several of his colleagues were found to have engaged in improper behavior, but Mr. Sullivan, who was reassigned for a period of time after the Stevens case collapsed, was ultimately exonerated by the Office of Professional Responsibility. In the case involving Mr. Adams, Mr. Sullivan reasoned that he had less to lose by signing the dismissal request because his public reputation had already been tarnished by the Stevens matter.
Antoinette Bacon
Known as Toni, Ms. Bacon is a longtime federal corruption prosecutor who joined the Justice Department in Washington to potentially lead its criminal division. She was the second prosecutor to sign the dismissal request and was a former acting U.S. attorney for the Northern District of New York.
One career highlight for Ms. Bacon, who grew up outside Cleveland, was the prosecution of a sweeping federal graft case in her own backyard, the so-called Cuyahoga County corruption case. The case, which led to an overhaul of the county government, involved a county commissioner, a county auditor, a Cleveland City Council member, two sitting judges, nine lawyers (five of them former prosecutors), two union leaders and two senior hospital executives.
Alex Spiro
Mr. Spiro is a partner in the New York office of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, a large corporate law firm where he is a leader of the investigations, government enforcement and white collar defense practice.
Mr. Spiro, who joined Mr. Adams’s defense team in September, has established himself as a go-to lawyer for high-profile clients, including Jay-Z, Alec Baldwin and, most recently, the billionaire Elon Musk, a close associate of Mr. Trump’s.
He also defended Aaron Hernandez, the former New England Patriots player, in a case in which Mr. Hernandez was acquitted of shooting two people; and Robert Kraft, the Patriots owner who was charged with soliciting sex in Florida. The charges were dropped.
Advertisement
Advertisement
At the center of the uproar surrounding the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss criminal charges against Mayor Eric Adams is a single Latin phrase: quid pro quo.
The expression — this for that, in English — means a favor, something granted in exchange for something in return. The judge presiding over Wednesday’s hearing may scrutinize whether there had been an improper exchange that undermined the integrity of the dismissal motion.
Last week, the acting deputy attorney general, Emil Bove III, asked federal prosecutors in Manhattan to request that the judge throw out the corruption case, saying it would hurt the mayor’s ability to assist the Trump administration’s mass deportation program.
Manhattan’s top federal prosecutor, Danielle R. Sassoon, resigned in response. In a letter to the attorney general, she said that at a meeting in Washington with Mr. Bove and prosecutors, Mr. Adams’s lawyers “repeatedly urged what amounted to a quid pro quo.”
The mayor, his lawyers had said, would help the Trump administration with immigration enforcement if the case were dismissed, according to Ms. Sassoon.
“It is a breathtaking and dangerous precedent to reward Adams’s opportunistic and shifting commitments on immigration and other policy matters with dismissal of a criminal indictment,” Ms. Sassoon wrote.
There is irony in the accusation that Mr. Adams is accused of trading official action on immigration to evade an indictment that had also accused him of a corrupt quid pro quo.
Federal prosecutors in Manhattan had said that Mr. Adams accepted luxury travel in exchange for pressuring the New York Fire Department to approve the opening of a high-rise consulate building for the Turkish government despite safety concerns.
Mr. Adams’s lawyer, Alex Spiro, has denied that his client agreed to a deal with the administration.
In a letter to the judge overseeing the case, Mr. Spiro wrote: “There was no quid pro quo. Period.”
Some lawyers have suggested that if there were one, it might be prosecuted under federal bribery laws that forbid elected officials from taking official action in exchange for receiving “a thing of value,” which the dismissal of Mr. Adams’s case could be interpreted to be.
Hagan Scotten, a Manhattan prosecutor on the Adams case who quit last week, wrote in his resignation letter to the Department of Justice that “our laws and traditions do not allow using the prosecutorial power to influence other citizens, much less elected officials, in this way.”
Regardless, experts said, no such case would be prosecuted by President Trump’s appointees at the Justice Department — since they are the same officials who are determined to drop the Adams case.
Advertisement
Advertisement