A federal judge has permanently dismissed corruption charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams, marking a dramatic conclusion to a politically fraught case that divided the Justice Department and triggered high-profile resignations. The ruling, delivered by U.S. District Judge Dale Ho, bars the Justice Department from bringing the case again, rejecting efforts by Trump-era prosecutors to leave the door open for future legal action.
In a 78-page opinion released Wednesday, Judge Ho accused the Trump Justice Department of acting with questionable political motivations in its push to abandon the case. "Everything here smacks of a bargain: dismissal of the indictment in exchange for immigration policy concessions," Ho wrote. "That suggestion is fundamentally incompatible with the basic promise of equal justice under the law."
The decision effectively ends a federal indictment that had loomed over Adams since September, when he was charged with bribery, wire fraud, and conspiracy. Prosecutors alleged that, as Brooklyn Borough President, Adams received travel perks and other benefits from Turkish officials in exchange for political favors-including pressuring the fire department to approve an inspection for a consular building.
Adams has consistently maintained his innocence. "From Day 1, the mayor has maintained his innocence and now justice for Eric Adams and New Yorkers has prevailed," said his attorney Alex Spiro. In his own remarks, Adams said, "I'm now happy that our city can finally close the book on this and focus solely on the future of our great city."
The case's dismissal comes just one day before the filing deadline for candidates in the city's upcoming mayoral election, providing a potential boost for Adams, who had been politically hobbled by the ongoing legal battle. He is seeking reelection this fall.
Despite the legal win, the political fallout remains. Public Advocate Jumaane Williams stated: "The mayor was always entitled to his day in court, instead, he's used his power and privilege to sidestep the process." NYC Comptroller Brad Lander added, "A dismissal with prejudice is far superior to one without prejudice, one that would leave our mayor dangling on a string every day."
The Justice Department defended its actions, with a spokesperson stating, "This case was an example of political weaponization and a waste of resources. We are focused on arresting and prosecuting terrorists while returning the Department of Justice to its core mission of keeping Americans safe."
However, the fallout from the DOJ's maneuvering was significant. Several top officials resigned in protest, including Danielle Sassoon, then-acting U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. In her resignation letter, Sassoon described a meeting where Adams' attorneys "repeatedly urged what amounted to a quid pro quo," asserting that Adams could only support immigration enforcement priorities if the indictment was dismissed.
Both Adams and then-acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove denied the existence of any such deal. Bove had written that the prosecution had "unduly restricted Mayor Adams' ability to devote full attention and resources to the illegal immigration and violent crime that escalated under the policies of the prior Administration."
To address potential conflicts, Judge Ho enlisted conservative attorney Paul Clement to assess the DOJ's request. Clement recommended a full dismissal to avoid "a palpable sense that the prosecution... could be renewed," which he warned would hang "like the proverbial Sword of Damocles over the accused."
Judge Ho emphasized that his ruling should not be interpreted as a judgment on the truth of the charges. "It ensures that, going forward, the charges in the Indictment cannot be used as leverage over Mayor Adams or the City of New York," he wrote. "Bringing these decisions into the open may, in turn, lead to attempts by the public to influence these decisions through democratic channels."
Reaction among Adams' political rivals was swift and mixed. State Sen. Zellnor Myrie called it "the right move by Judge Ho," but added, "no court decision will make New Yorkers forget that when push came to shove, Eric Adams put his own needs above the city." Assembly Member Zohran Mamdani echoed concerns of undue influence, saying, "Even the judge in the case agrees: this slimy deal reeks of a quid pro quo with the Trump administration."
City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams remarked that while the charges are now gone, the damage remains. "This has been a distraction for many months, it has caused trauma to the people of the city," she said. State Sen. Jessica Ramos expressed hope that the mayor will now focus on "representing New Yorkers, instead of pandering to Trump."
The decision comes as speculation mounts over whether former Governor Andrew Cuomo, who has remained silent on the ruling, will officially challenge Adams. "This was the worst day that Andrew Cuomo has had, probably since he was forced to leave office," said political analyst Hank Sheinkopf.
Despite his fundraising shortfall in recent months, Adams still retains over $4 million in his campaign war chest, giving him a potential advantage as he prepares to hit the campaign trail. But for some voters, the controversy has left lasting doubts.
"I think he should be prosecuted for what he did," said New York City voter Carlos Vargas. "He should be charged the same way I'd be charged if I did something wrong." Others, like voter Eddie, remain open-minded: "The charges levied against Mayor Adams are no different than charges levied against many other politicians who have beat said charges."
