Okay, here’s a rewritten version of the article, expanded and formatted with Markdown:

The Dismissal of the Adams Case: Law, Politics, and a Justice Department Firestorm

Three weeks ago, a significant controversy erupted within the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the legal community, centering on the case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams. The initial spark was the resignation of Danielle Sassoon, the acting U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York (SDNY), who stepped down in protest after allegedly being directed to halt the prosecution of Mayor Adams.

Sassoon’s public and principled resignation triggered a chain reaction. Several of her subordinates within the SDNY followed suit, resigning in solidarity. The discontent spread to Washington D.C., where lawyers in the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section also resigned, all united in their objection to the decision to dismiss the case.

Ultimately, the motion to dismiss the charges against Mayor Adams was filed by Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove, signaling the formal beginning of what the media would portray as a battle for the soul of the justice system.

Media Narratives and Accusations of Political Interference

The media quickly seized upon the story, framing it as a narrative of courageous career prosecutors standing up against what they characterized as corrupt interference by the newly appointed Trump administration’s DOJ officials. The alleged motivation, according to these accounts, was to reward Mayor Adams for his public opposition to the Biden administration’s immigration policies.

The original indictment against Adams, brought by the Biden Justice Department the previous September, involved a somewhat controversial bribery charge related to an upgraded flight to Turkey. The timing of the indictment, following Adams’ criticism of Biden’s immigration policies, led some of Adams’ supporters to claim the action was politically motivated, characterizing it as a further example of the "weaponization" of the DOJ under Biden.

The sudden reversal and dismissal of charges under the new Trump administration raised suspicions of a quid pro quo, with the dismissal framed as a reward for Adams’ willingness to cooperate with the Trump administration’s efforts to reverse Biden’s border policies.

A Judge Seeks Independent Counsel

On March 3rd, during a hearing on the motion to dismiss, the presiding judge highlighted a crucial point: both the DOJ and Mayor Adams were in agreement on the dismissal. This created a situation where there was no adversarial party to argue against the motion and voice the concerns of the disgruntled former prosecutors.

To ensure that these concerns were adequately addressed, the judge appointed an amicus curiae, or "friend of the court," to advise on the legitimacy of the issues raised by those objecting to the dismissal. The judge selected Paul Clement, a former DOJ Solicitor General with a distinguished legal career, for this role. Clement was tasked with reviewing the motion and providing the court with an independent assessment of the legal and factual issues at hand.

DOJ Clarifies its Position

As Clement prepared his brief, newly confirmed Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, alongside his principal assistant deputy, Emil Bove, filed a memorandum under their own signatures, explicitly excluding any other DOJ officials. This was a deliberate attempt to make clear that the dismissal decision represented the position of senior DOJ leadership, effectively dismissing the relevance or necessity of input from subordinates within the chain of command.

Two key takeaways emerged from these memos.

First, the DOJ asserted that it was acting entirely within its legal authority, emphasizing the broad discretion the Executive Branch possesses in deciding whether to pursue or abandon a case, even after a grand jury indictment has been issued.

Second, the Blanche memo revealed that the "weaponization" arguments, which had been cited as a basis for the dismissal, were themselves the subject of an ongoing investigation. This investigation would examine both the initial investigation of Adams and the subsequent decision to charge him. This point was reinforced by the memo’s inclusion of excerpts from communications among members of the prosecution team at the SDNY, along with a request to seal the full text of these communications, further indicating the sensitivity and active nature of the investigation.

Clement’s Analysis and the Limits of Judicial Review

Regarding the first takeaway, the extent of the Executive Branch’s discretion in dismissing cases, Clement’s memo acknowledged the substantial legal precedent supporting the DOJ’s position. While Clement attempted to identify a potential role for the court in reviewing motions to dismiss, he conceded that a vast body of case law affirms the nearly unchecked authority vested in the Executive Branch in such matters. He also noted the practical impossibility of compelling the Executive Branch to prosecute a case it has decided to abandon.

The DOJ’s memo cited numerous cases to bolster its argument, underscoring the Executive Branch’s ultimate authority in deciding whether to dismiss a case.

Despite this, Clement’s memo attempted to carve out a limited role for the court. He pointed to Rule 48(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, arguing that it grants the court "an important, but limited, role in assessing the government’s motion to discontinue an ongoing prosecution." He clarified that the rule empowers the court to consider how the prosecution should be discontinued – with or without prejudice – but does not authorize the court to take over the executive’s prosecutorial function.

Given Adams’ status as an elected public official, Clement recommended that the dismissal be "with prejudice," preventing the charges from being brought again in the future. He grounded this recommendation not in specific legal authority, but in prudential considerations, arguing that it would help avoid the perception that Adams might be influenced in his decision-making by the possibility of future charges.

Clement’s Neutrality on Improper Motives

Importantly, Clement did not reach a conclusion on whether the case was improperly initiated or whether the motives for dismissing it were characterized by bad faith or an improper quid pro quo. He merely stated that the fact that both allegations had been aired in public weighed in favor of dismissing the case with prejudice, as either allegation could serve as a basis for such a dismissal.

A Fundamental Misunderstanding of the Law?

Ultimately, the two memos highlighted what the author viewed as a fundamental misunderstanding of the law on the part of the resigned prosecutors. Their protest and resignations stemmed from their belief that they could not, in good faith, justify dismissing the indictment under Rule 48(a).

They failed to recognize that the new Trump administration’s enforcement priorities might outweigh their pursuit of the mayor. More significantly, they did not fully grasp that every decision to prosecute or not prosecute involves a balancing of competing interests. They mistakenly believed that a prosecution initiated with sufficient evidence must be pursued to its conclusion, and that any decision to deviate from this path based on competing policy considerations must be inherently corrupt. This naiveté, the author implies, ultimately led to their misjudgment and subsequent departure.