Excerpts from Decision on Bove’s motion to dismiss the Adams indictment by federal judge Dale Ho, April 2, 2025

“[A]t DOJ, on February 13, five attorneys—including the Deputy Assistant Attorney General who oversaw the Public Integrity Section, the acting head of the Public Integrity
Section, and three other Public Integrity Section attorneys—resigned. ECF No. 150-2 at 5-6.14 The next day, on February 14, Acting DAG Bove “told the [remaining DOJ] career public integrity
prosecutors in a meeting . . . that they had an hour to decide among themselves who would file the motion.” ECF No. 150-9 at 2.15 Ultimately, an attorney in the Public Integrity Section agreed to
file the motion.”

- "[The] first asserted rationale for dismissing this case—that it has been tainted by “appearances of impropriety” …  is unsupported by any objective evidence. Rather, the record before the Court indicates that the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York prosecutors who worked on this case followed all appropriate Justice Department guidelines. There is no evidence—zero—that they had any improper motives. … [Everything] suggests that the “appearances of impropriety” rationale is not just thin, but pretextual.”

- "As for the [second asserted rationale], immigration enforcement …If it is true that DOJ sought to extract a public official’s cooperation with the administration’s agenda in exchange for dropping a prosecution, that would be clearly contrary to the public interest and a grave betrayal of the public trust, because it would violate norms against using prosecutorial power for political ends. … DOJ’s arguments trigger concerns regarding political favoritism in prosecutorial decision making. …The breathtaking implications of DOJ’s position—which were apparently well-understood by the numerous attorneys at USAO-SDNY and DOJ who resigned rather than sign this Rule 48(a) Motion—are difficult to square with the words engraved above the front entrance of the United States Supreme Court: “Equal Justice Under Law.”

-"Some will undoubtedly find today’s decision unsatisfying, wondering why, if DOJ’s ostensible reasons for dropping this case are so troubling, the Court does not simply deny the Motion to Dismiss altogether. But .. the Court cannot order DOJ to continue the prosecution, and it is aware of no authority (outside of the criminal contempt context) that would empower it, as some have urged, to appoint an independent prosecutor. Therefore, any decision by this Court to deny the Government’s Motion to Dismiss would be futile at best, because DOJ could—and, by all indications, unequivocally would—simply refuse to prosecute the case, inevitably resulting in a dismissal after seventy days for violating the Mayor’s right to a speedy trial."

Full text of: United States v Adams, Opinion and Order (S.D.N.Y. April 2, 2025) (Dale E. Ho, US District Judge)