Eric Adams and the Rule of Law

The dismissal of Eric Adams' corruption charges questioned the rule of law. Find out why.

---

Written on April 21, 2025

Analysis by Joe Gonzalez

In America, the rule of law has stood tall above any one person, idea or movement. This guiding principle has come into question in recent months. Mayor of New York City Eric Adams has recently seen his criminal charges dismissed after being charged with corruption in early September. Last month, Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove sent a letter to the Southern District of New York prosecutors to abandon the case altogether, citing that Adams’ charges would “impede Adams’ ability to support Trump’s immigration agenda,”  according to Politico. The charges were originally brought after several years of investigation by the Southern District Court of New York, which is held in high regard for high-profile corruption cases. Charges against Adams included corruption, wire fraud, violations of campaign finance laws and federal program bribery, according to BBC News. The charges suddenly became part of Adams’ tumultuous history as the Mayor of New York City.

During the investigation, federal prosecutors initially accused Adams of participating in a “long-running scheme” to accept over $100,000 in illegal gifts from Turkish citizens and government officials, including luxury flights, hotel stays and campaign contributions, reported by Truthout. At least seven senior Department of Justice officials have resigned as a result of the charges being dropped. A political and legal firestorm has ensued around the nature of the order to drop the charges. Deep fractures between the justice system and the political power dynamics behind the move have led to widespread debate over the move, leaving many wondering why exactly the charges were dropped and questioning the strength of constitutional safeguards.

Deputy Attorney General for the DOJ Emil Bove cited Adams’ need to focus on policy and not be bogged down by charges the DOJ felt were unnecessary. In a sudden turn, the DOJ Chief of Staff later argued the case lacked merit altogether, contradicting Bove’s previous explanation for why the charges were dropped. In a stunning bombshell, New York Magazine obtained internal communications stating Adams’ legal team directly attributed the dismissal of the case to Adams’ willingness to enforce Trump’s immigration agenda, claiming a quid pro quo. Danielle Session, Acting U.S. Attorney, called this move “deeply corrupt” in the New York Magazine article. The change in reasoning behind the case dismissal prompts profound legal scrutiny regarding how and why cases can be dropped. DiCindio Law described “insufficient evidence” or “changed circumstances” regarding the cases themselves as reasons why prosecutors dismiss cases. Neither of these scenarios occurred in the case—the only changed circumstance was a new administration.

U.S. District Judge Dale Ho refused to greenlight the reversal of the charges, appointing former Solicitor General Paul Clement to argue against the DOJ’s motion through amicus curiae, or as an independent “friend of the court”. This movement evoked adversarial testing, where prosecutors and defendants may have acted in bad faith, according to The Queens Daily Eagle. Trading political favors (in this case, harsher immigration policy) for prosecutorial leniency could constitute a constitutional violation of due process. Clement may argue the Fifth Amendment was violated, highlighting the possibility of a potential quid pro quo in the high-profile case. This idea of normalizing political tit-for-tat by Adams and Trump sets a dangerous precedent within politics and the rule of law. If this is unchallenged, its precedent may incentivize politicians who have acted illegally to trade policy concessions for legal protection. This challenges the rule of law in America and should not become a norm among government figures.

Former U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade has argued this move has eroded confidence and legitimacy within the DOJ, stating in Politico that Bove’s actions have “irreparably damaged the department’s credibility.” If the DOJ is emboldening political actors to comply with federal policy in exchange for legal clemency, the judicial check on the executive branch of government has been substantially weakened. Current and future administrations may view this as a green light to politicize prosecutions. Allowing politics into the rule of law undermines confidence in the American judicial system. Judge Ho’s action in appointing Clement to counter the DOJ’s motion provides evidence that the judiciary is not completely backing down from the DOJ.

By introducing Clement to investigate the dismissal, one judicial body is ensuring an investigation into the reasons behind the decision, demanding resolutions to unresolved controversies. While prosecutors enjoy a wide degree of freedom, advancing partisan agendas exceeds the power provided to the DOJ and SDNY. If Adams’ charges were dismissed without a transparent justification, public trust and legitimacy in the rule of law at both the state and federal levels will be significantly eroded by this action from the DOJ. Despite the future of Adams’ charges remaining unclear, one thing is certain: The DOJ has completely forgone being apolitical.

---