Federal District Judge Dale E. Ho on Wednesday issued a 78-page ruling that dismissed the criminal corruption case against Mayor Eric Adams of New York.
In his decision, Judge Ho granted a motion by the Justice Department to drop the charges but denied its request to allow them to be resurrected later, saying that doing so would improperly allow the federal government to hold that threat over the mayor’s head.
The judge also excoriated the Trump administration, saying its arguments in favor of dismissing the case had been made largely under false pretenses and that its actions ran contrary to the country’s tradition of equal justice for all. And while the judge did not conclude that there had been an explicit quid pro quo — in which the mayor’s case would be dropped in exchange for aiding the president’s immigration crackdown — he wrote that the circumstances suggested as much.
He also rejected the administration’s claims that Manhattan prosecutors who resigned rather than drop the charges had done anything wrong.
Here are five quotations drawn from Judge Ho’s decision, lightly edited for clarity and to remove legal jargon.
On dismissing the charges permanently
If in fact D.O.J.’s immigration enforcement rationale amounts to a quid pro quo to extract policy concessions from the Mayor, then it is difficult to imagine a more egregious example of the kind of prosecutorial harassment [that the rule requiring judges to approve criminal dismissals] is intended to guard against.
Such an arrangement would be bad for Mayor Adams, and it would be bad for the people of New York City. And the Court cannot be complicit in it.
On what the dismissal says about the mayor’s conduct
It is important to clarify that the Court’s decision today is not about whether Mayor Adams is innocent or guilty. Mayor Adams, like any person accused of a crime, is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
On the judge’s role in the case
The judicial role is to preside over a case; it is not to decide whether the case “should” continue.
Part of this Court’s limited role is to shine a light on the reasons that D.O.J. has decided to dismiss this case, leaving the most important judgment to the public.
On the argument that Mr. Adams was indicted for political reasons
D.O.J.’s first asserted rationale for dismissing this case — that it has been tainted by “appearances of impropriety” — is unsupported by any objective evidence.
Rather, the record before the Court indicates that the U.S. attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York prosecutors who worked on this case followed all appropriate Justice Department guidelines. There is no evidence — zero — that they had any improper motives.
On claims that the charges interfered with New York City’s mayoral election
There is no support for the notion that the timing of the indictment — approximately nine months before the 2025 New York City mayoral primary election — creates a risk of election interference.
Neither D.O.J. nor the Mayor cites any authority — no guideline, rule or case — suggesting that it is improper to indict a candidate for office nine months before an election. It is also difficult to imagine how such a rule could work in practice without effectively gutting public corruption laws.
On the argument that the case was preventing the mayor from aiding Mr. Trump’s immigration crackdown
As for the immigration enforcement rationale, to the extent that D.O.J. suggests that Mayor Adams is unable to assist with immigration enforcement while this case is ongoing, such an assertion is similarly unsubstantiated.
Everything here smacks of a bargain: dismissal of the indictment in exchange for immigration policy concessions.
On the mayor allowing federal immigration agents into the Rikers Island jail complex
Here, the fact that, after D.O.J. made the decision to seek dismissal of his case, Mayor Adams decided to issue an executive order in alignment with current “federal immigration initiatives and policies,” but in apparent conflict with New York City law, is troubling to say the least. It suggests that the federal government is using the pendency of a federal indictment to override the city’s laws in favor of its own policy goals.
On the implications of dismissing corruption charges to advance public policy goals
D.O.J. cites no examples, and the Court is unable to find any, of the government dismissing charges against an elected official because doing so would enable the official to facilitate federal policy goals.
And D.O.J.’s assertion that it has “virtually unreviewable” license to dismiss charges on this basis is disturbing in its breadth, implying that public officials may receive special dispensation if they are compliant with the incumbent administration’s policy priorities. That suggestion is fundamentally incompatible with the basic promise of equal justice under law.
Michael Rothfeld is an investigative reporter in New York, writing in-depth stories focused on the city’s government, business and personalities. More about Michael Rothfeld
The post Excerpts From the Judge’s Order Dropping Charges Against Eric Adams appeared first on New York Times.
