Federal judges rarely have the power to reject a government request to drop criminal charges, but the corruption case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams may prove to be an exception.
On Thursday, Manhattan’s top federal prosecutor, Danielle R. Sassoon, resigned in protest after refusing to comply with an order to seek dismissal of the charges against Adams. The directive came from Emil Bove III, the acting deputy attorney general and a former personal lawyer to President Trump.
Bove explicitly stated that his order had nothing to do with the strength of the case but was instead based on political considerations. He argued that prosecuting Adams would hinder the mayor’s ability to focus on crime and immigration issues—key priorities of the Trump administration.
Following Sassoon’s resignation, along with at least seven other Justice Department officials, Bove personally signed the motion to dismiss the case. Now, the decision rests with Judge Dale E. Ho of the Federal District Court in Manhattan.
A Rare Challenge to Prosecutorial Authority
Legal experts say that while judges typically grant dismissal requests, this case could be different.
“Judge Ho could say this is a politically motivated decision that undermines the grand jury process and the integrity of the court,” said Stephen Gillers, a legal ethics professor at New York University.
If Judge Ho rejects the dismissal, the government would likely appeal, setting up a legal battle over the Justice Department’s handling of the case.
Since Adams was indicted in September, the Southern District of New York has aggressively pursued the case. Even after the Trump administration promoted Sassoon to lead the office, prosecutors continued pressing charges. Judge Ho had already denied multiple requests from Adams to dismiss the case, further raising the stakes.
In her resignation letter, Sassoon warned that Ho was likely to conduct a thorough court inquiry into the Justice Department’s reasoning. Such scrutiny, she wrote, could severely damage the department’s credibility, regardless of the outcome.
Accusations of a Political Deal
Sassoon also rejected Bove’s claim that the case was being dropped to help Adams focus on federal immigration enforcement.
“Rather than be rewarded,” she wrote, “Adams’s advocacy should be called out for what it is: an improper offer of immigration enforcement assistance in exchange for a dismissal of his case.”
Gillers agreed, saying Ho was unlikely to accept such a justification for dismissing a grand jury indictment.
Historical Precedents Favor the Government
While this situation is unusual, legal precedent suggests that Ho’s ability to intervene is limited.
In 2020, during Trump’s first term, a similar issue arose in the prosecution of Michael Flynn, the former national security adviser. After Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI, federal prosecutors abruptly moved to drop the charges. When the presiding judge, Emmet G. Sullivan, resisted, Flynn appealed. An initial court ruling upheld the government’s authority, though the decision was later overturned.
More recently, Judge Beryl A. Howell in Washington reluctantly approved the dismissal of charges against two Proud Boys members who had received clemency from Trump for their role in the January 6 Capitol attack. Though she condemned the Justice Department’s reasoning as “revisionist myth,” she ruled that she had no choice but to grant the motion.
Judge Ho, a Biden appointee and Yale Law School graduate, now faces a defining moment in his career. While legal tradition suggests he should approve the dismissal, the circumstances surrounding the Adams case make this decision anything but routine.