Federal Judge Dismisses Indictment Against Mayor Adams With Prejudice

Indictment Officially Tossed

Judge Seeks to Prevent Political Perception

U.S. District Judge Dale Ho, who presided over the case, explained that although the Department of Justice (DOJ) no longer wished to pursue prosecution, he chose to dismiss the case with prejudice to avoid the appearance that Adams’ legal fate was tied to the political whims of the Trump administration—particularly around immigration policy. Ho underscored that a dismissal without prejudice could imply the mayor’s freedom was contingent on his cooperation with federal immigration efforts.

Criticism Aimed at DOJ

While granting the dismissal, Judge Ho didn’t shy away from condemning the DOJ’s rationale. He stated that some arguments for continuing the prosecution had legitimate merit and criticized the Justice Department’s motives. The judge’s decision signaled dissatisfaction with how politics intertwines with law enforcement priorities.

Political Fallout for Mayor Adams

Despite the legal victory, the political consequences may prove lasting. Since the initial charges surfaced in September, Adams has struggled to retain public trust, suffered a steep decline in approval ratings, and lost backing from several influential allies. With re-election efforts largely stalled, former Governor Andrew Cuomo has taken the lead in the mayoral race, gaining traction with voters and former Adams supporters.

Backdrop to the Case

The now-dismissed indictment accused Mayor Adams of accepting lavish travel accommodations and unlawful campaign contributions from Turkish nationals in exchange for helping them secure approval for a Manhattan consulate. The proposed building failed to meet city fire safety regulations, further intensifying scrutiny.

Justice Department’s Initial Strategy

The DOJ originally moved to dismiss the case in February, citing concerns that the trial would interfere with the mayor’s assistance in implementing President Trump’s aggressive immigration agenda. Prosecutors also alleged that the Manhattan U.S. Attorney’s Office had political motivations for charging Adams, possibly seeking publicity or retaliation for the mayor’s criticisms of President Biden.

Controversy Over “Without Prejudice” Motion

Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove led the DOJ’s effort to dismiss the case “without prejudice,” preserving the right to refile charges in the future. This strategy caused internal turmoil at the Justice Department, resulting in several high-profile resignations, including that of Acting U.S. Attorney Danielle Sassoon. Sassoon accused Adams’ legal team of offering a quid pro quo—support for Trump’s immigration plans in exchange for a dismissal, a claim Adams’ lawyers denied.

Concerns Over Compromise and Power Imbalance

The proposed “without prejudice” dismissal drew criticism, with many arguing it placed the mayor in a vulnerable position. Critics said Adams might feel compelled to align with Trump’s policies to avoid future prosecution. Despite growing calls for his resignation, Governor Kathy Hochul declined to remove Adams, instead calling for legislation to impose new checks on mayoral authority.

Judge Cites Troubling Pattern

In his 78-page opinion, Judge Ho rejected the DOJ’s claims that the trial would hinder Adams’s immigration-related duties. He pointed to the mayor’s actions following the DOJ’s dismissal request—including reopening an ICE office on Rikers Island and meeting with Trump’s immigration adviser—as evidence of possible concessions. He said the timing suggested a troubling exchange between legal leniency and policy cooperation.

Limited Judicial Authority

Judge Ho emphasized that the court lacked the authority to force the DOJ to proceed with a prosecution it no longer supported or to appoint an independent prosecutor. He clarified that his decision did not reflect a judgment on the mayor’s innocence but acknowledged the presumption under the law. Since the DOJ dropped the case, no trial would take place.

Defense Declares Victory

Adams’ attorney, Alex Spiro, welcomed the court’s decision, declaring the case should never have been filed. “From the beginning, Mayor Adams has stood firm in his innocence,” said Spiro. “Today, justice has prevailed—not just for him, but all New Yorkers.”