In front of a packed Manhattan courtroom on Wednesday afternoon, a federal judge grilled Donald Trump’s acting deputy attorney general, Emil Bove, about his motion to dismiss a lengthy corruption indictment against the New York City mayor, Eric Adams.
The hearing followed weeks of tense meetings inside the justice department and public resignations from senior prosecutors, who had refused demands from Bove and top Trump justice leaders to dismiss the case, citing concerns that it amounted to a quid pro quo in exchange for Adams’s collaboration with Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
At the hearing inside the grey, granite walls of the Thurgood Marshall United States courthouse, the two federal prosecutors who had signed on to the dismissal motion alongside Bove did not show up to stand in front of the district judge Dale E Ho.
Bove walked alone into a hushed courtroom and stood by three empty chairs on the government’s side of the courtroom to face Ho.
Ho questioned Bove repeatedly about the government’s argument that it had been appropriate to dismiss the prosecution, not because of any problems with the strength of the case, but because its continuation would have impeded Adams’s ability to collaborate with Trump’s ongoing crackdown on undocumented immigrants.
“Are there other examples you can point me to where this rationale has been invoked?” asked Ho.
“I’m not aware [of any],” Bove replied, pointing out that federal prosecutors use their discretion to drop cases all the time.
Ho followed up asking whether the same policy-oriented rationale could lead the Department of Justice to drop cases against other public officials, such as border state governors or police chiefs, in order to facilitate their cooperation with the US president’s agenda.
“Yes,” Bove replied, adding: “It’s a totally appropriate consideration.”
Seated across the chamber from Bove was Adams, a Democrat whose administration has been roiled with controversy following last year’s federal indictment accusing him of accepting illegal campaign contributions and lavish travel perks in exchange for doing the bidding of the Turkish government – charges the mayor denied.
Adams had previously opposed Trump’s immigration agenda. But after his indictment, the mayor publicly courted the president, painting himself as a fellow victim of a federal prosecutorial conspiracy and offering to collaborate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Despite the flip by the Department of Justice in the case and by Adams on immigration policy, Adams’s counsel has repeatedly denied that his client agreed to any quid pro quo – a claim that was seemingly undercut last week when the mayor appeared on Fox News grinning as Trump’s border czar declared he would be “up his butt” if Adams failed to follow through on “the agreement” they “came to”.
At the hearing, Ho had Adams swear in and questioned him directly about whether there had “been anything left out” of his formal agreement with the government about the proposed dismissal of his case, and whether he had been “promised” anything outside the official court filings.
“No, your honor,” Adams replied.
Ho also asked Adams whether he understood that the government’s particular method of pushing to dismiss the case meant that it could subsequently reintroduce criminal charges against him.
“I do understand that,” Adams said. “I have not committed a crime. I don’t see them bringing it back.”
Ho ended the hearing without issuing a decision and said that he did not want to make any hasty decisions.
Experts say the judge has a variety of options that could have major implications for Adams himself and New York City’s cooperation with Trump’s immigration agenda.
Because Trump’s Department of Justice has asked Ho to accept their motion to dismiss the case “without prejudice”, prosecutors could opt to reopen the case, a capability that Bove told the judge there was no clear timeline on.
This perpetual threat against Adams was one of several concerns that Danielle Sassoon, the former acting US attorney for the southern district of New York, raised in a letter to the attorney general, Pam Bondi, last week.
“Moreover, dismissing without prejudice and with the express option of again indicting Adams in the future creates obvious ethical problems, by implicitly threatening future prosecution if Adams’s cooperation with enforcing the immigration laws proves unsatisfactory to the Department,” Sassoon wrote just days before her resignation.
To curb that threat, some Trump opponents have argued that Ho should accept the motion with prejudice. Others have gone further, encouraging the judge to reject the motion to dismiss and consider appointing a special counsel to continue the prosecution against Adams.
While Adams’s legal future hangs in the balance, the incumbent is now facing growing calls from fellow Democrats and good-government groups who want him out of office.
On Tuesday, Kathy Hochul, the New York governor, met with top Democratic leaders, including some former Adams allies, discussing demands that she use her executive authority to remove Adams from office.
In a statement, Hochul noted that no New York governor had ever used that power to remove an elected mayor and that “overturning the will of the voters is a serious step that should not be taken lightly”.
But the governor’s statement also pointed to the recent resignation of four top Adams administration officials, highlighting the administrative chaos Adams’s ongoing legal woes could have for New York City residents.
“If they feel unable to serve in city hall at this time, that raises serious questions about the long-term future of this mayoral administration,” Hochul said.
