In America’s newest sham political deal, a federal judge just permanently dismissed corruption charges against NYC Mayor Eric Adams while blasting the Trump administration for trying to leverage criminal cases to extract immigration policy concessions.
At a Glance
- A federal judge dismissed corruption charges against NYC Mayor Eric Adams with prejudice, meaning they can’t be refiled
- Judge Dale Ho condemned the Trump administration for apparently trading case dismissal for immigration enforcement concessions
- Seven senior DOJ prosecutors resigned in protest of the administration’s interference
- Adams faced serious charges including conspiracy, fraud, and accepting over $100,000 in gifts from Turkish citizens
- The dismissal comes as Adams trails in polls ahead of the NYC mayoral primary
When Justice Takes a Backseat to Politics
Just when you thought our justice system couldn’t become more of a political chess game, we get this gem out of New York City. A federal judge has permanently dismissed the corruption case against Mayor Eric Adams, but not without calling out what appears to be a textbook political quid pro quo orchestrated by the Trump administration.
The case centered on serious allegations that Adams accepted over $100,000 in gifts from Turkish citizens in exchange for favors, along with charges of conspiracy, fraud, and soliciting illegal campaign contributions. But apparently enforcing immigration policy is now more important than prosecuting alleged corruption in one of America’s largest cities.
The dismissal triggered what’s being described as the largest mass resignation of senior federal prosecutors in decades. Seven high-level Justice Department officials, including acting U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Danielle Sassoon, walked away from their posts in protest. It doesn’t take a legal genius to figure out why—when career prosecutors who’ve spent months building a case suddenly see it torpedoed by political appointees, the message is crystal clear: justice is negotiable when there are political points to be scored.
Judge dismisses corruption case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams and, in a split with the DOJ, orders that charges can't be refiledhttps://t.co/vjtVj4ZjSP
— CNN Breaking News (@cnnbrk) April 2, 2025
A Judge With Uncommon Courage
In a rare display of judicial backbone, U.S. District Judge Dale Ho didn’t just rubber-stamp the Justice Department’s request to dismiss the case without prejudice (which would have allowed them to refile charges later if Adams didn’t play ball). Instead, he dismissed the case with prejudice, permanently ending the matter while delivering a scathing rebuke of the apparent political manipulation. The DOJ had requested dismissal without prejudice, essentially keeping Adams on a legal leash—comply with our immigration demands or face reinstated charges. Judge Ho wasn’t having it.
“Everything here smacks of a bargain: dismissal of the Indictment in exchange for immigration policy concessions”, says Judge Ho.
The judge went on to state that dismissing without prejudice “would create the unavoidable perception that the Mayor’s freedom depends on his ability to carry out the immigration enforcement priorities of the administration, and that he might be more beholden to the demands of the federal government than to the wishes of his own constituents.” Imagine that—a judge actually concerned about the integrity of the justice system in an era when prosecutorial decisions increasingly resemble political vendettas or protection rackets. How refreshing.
The Immigration Connection
The plot thickens when you look at the timing. Shortly before the case dismissal, Adams signed an Executive Order allowing ICE access to Rikers Island jail—a significant policy shift for a sanctuary city like New York. Then there’s the fact that Adams and Trump’s border czar Tom Homan reportedly discussed collaboration on immigration enforcement. Coincidence? Please. The whole situation is about as subtle as a neon sign. The DOJ, for its part, offered the laughably transparent excuse that they were “focused on arresting and prosecuting terrorists” rather than pursuing what they called political weaponization.
“If he doesn’t come through, I’ll be back in New York… saying, ‘Where the hell is the agreement we came to?'”, says Tom Homan.
Let’s be clear—the allegations against Adams were serious, and as conservatives, we should want corrupt politicians held accountable regardless of party. But equally concerning is the notion that federal prosecutions can be initiated or discontinued based on whether a local official bends the knee to federal policy preferences. That’s not justice—that’s coercion through the legal system. And while getting tough on illegal immigration is absolutely necessary, weaponizing our justice system to achieve policy goals undermines the very constitutional principles we’re supposed to be defending. The ends don’t justify the means, especially when those means corrode the foundation of equal justice under law.
A judge has dismissed the Department of Justice's corruption case against NYC Mayor Eric Adams, and said the charges cannot be brought again https://t.co/Lguy3gj1p6
— philip lewis (@Phil_Lewis_) April 2, 2025
The Political Fallout
Adams, who has denied all charges, now heads into the New York City mayoral primary trailing in polls but with this legal cloud lifted. He’s confirmed his intention to run for re-election, expressing confidence in winning despite the controversy. Meanwhile, he’s faced criticism from both sides—from progressives who are suspicious of his apparent closeness to Trump, and from conservatives who see him as just another corrupt Democrat getting special treatment. The truth, as usual, is probably messier than either narrative suggests.
The American people deserve better than a justice system that functions like a political bargaining chip. We conservatives have long decried the weaponization of government agencies against political opponents. That principle can’t be situational—it must apply regardless of which party holds power. When federal prosecutors become pawns in policy disputes, when criminal charges become bargaining tools, and when justice is for sale to the highest political bidder, we’ve abandoned the rule of law. And without the rule of law, no amount of tough immigration policy or law-and-order rhetoric will save the republic.