1 day ago
5
You have a preview view of this article while we are checking your access. When we have confirmed access, the full article content will load.
Some legal observers say the court-appointed expert who recommended dismissing charges against Mayor Eric Adams failed to account for the extraordinary factors in the case.
April 1, 2025, 5:44 p.m. ET
The federal judge weighing a Justice Department request to drop corruption charges against Mayor Eric Adams of New York has been doing so against an extraordinary backdrop — a series of moves by the Trump administration that have shattered the norms of the American justice system.
Since the government filed its motion to dismiss the case in February, President Trump and his aides have deported accused gang members in defiance of a court order, sought to deport students who participated in campus protests, moved to punish disfavored law firms and urged the impeachment of judges with whom they have disagreed.
The motion to dismiss the case against Mr. Adams represented its own stark departure. When the acting No. 2 official at the Justice Department ordered Manhattan prosecutors to drop the charges, the interim U.S. attorney resigned rather than do so. Then she essentially accused her superiors of striking a corrupt deal to seek the dismissal of the indictment in exchange for Mr. Adams’s cooperation with Mr. Trump’s immigration policy, an allegation the Justice Department has denied.
To aid him in making his decision, the judge sought an independent analysis from a prominent conservative lawyer, Paul D. Clement, who has argued more than 100 cases before the Supreme Court. Mr. Clement, in turn, advised the judge against any deeper inquiry into the suggestions of impropriety. He issued guidance saying that the judge had no choice but to grant the government’s request.
Even if he orders the dismissal, as seems likely, the judge, Dale E. Ho, could use the opportunity to call out the unusual circumstances under which the Trump administration sought to end the prosecution, largely based on politics rather than facts and the law.
But, in the eyes of some other legal experts, Mr. Clement’s analysis failed to grapple with the full weight of the moment and rendered advice that would strip away the judge’s ability to act as a check against a potentially corrupt legal deal.
