Turkish Delights: Prosecutorial Discretion in the Eric Adams Case
Eric Adams, a former NYPD officer turned politician who ran a mayoral campaign based on law and order, was elected as Mayor of New York City in 2021; however, he soon came under investigation for alleged corruption dating back to his time as Brooklyn Borough President. On September 24, 2024, Adams was indicted by a grand jury, charged with counts of wire fraud, bribery, and conspiracy. Adams was alleged by investigators to have been accepting improper benefits from Turkish government officials and businesspeople seeking to gain influence over him. [1] Adams was alleged to have accepted over $100,000 in free tickets, high-end lodging, and meals through Turkish Airlines, which is primarily owned by the Turkish government. [2] In exchange, Adams allegedly expedited the opening of the Turkish Consulate project in New York City by pressuring the New York City Fire Department to allow the Turkish Consulate to move in before a proper inspection could have been conducted. [3] Adams, who was seen as a tough-on-crime mayor, faced significant public scrutiny following the corruption allegations. Public backlash was widespread—according to a March 2025 Quinnipiac University poll, 56% of New Yorkers said Adams should resign. [4]
In February 2025, despite serious allegations, the U.S. Department of Justice ordered prosecutors to drop the charges against Adams, citing prosecutorial discretion to avoid electoral interference with the upcoming mayoral election and administrative disruption. [5] Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove stated that the ongoing prosecution hindered Mayor Adams’s ability to focus on issues such as illegal immigration and violent crime, while also interfering with the 2025 New York City mayoral election. [6] Bove’s order was followed by the resignation of several senior prosecutors, including interim U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Danielle Sassoon. [7] After months of internal debate and political controversy, Judge Dale Ho granted the DOJ’s motion to dismiss the case with prejudice through prosecutorial discretion. [8] The decision sparked debate throughout the city. The same Quinnipiac University poll found that 63% of New York City voters believed the charges against Adams should not have been dismissed. [9] Amid these reactions, an important question arises: What are the limits of prosecutorial discretion when deciding whether to drop a corruption case against an elected official?
Firstly, Judge Ho’s opinion states that the dismissal is by no means a verdict of guilt or innocence, and that the rationale behind not going to trial is solely the “DOJ’s decision to abandon this case.” [10] Prosecutorial discretion was used for the dismissal of the case, a legal procedure that is “essential to doing justice” because it allows consideration of moral evaluations and distinctions. [11] Former University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School professor Stephanos Bibas claims that “discretion is bad only when it becomes idiosyncratic, unaccountable, or opaque.” [12] The question emerges whether this was a proper use of discretion or an improper political bargain. Whether Mayor Adams was innocent or guilty is thrown out of the equation because the case never made it to trial. The use of discretion in this case raises questions concerning the accountability of elected officials. Accountability carries heightened importance in corruption cases, where the integrity of public office itself is at stake. Failure to ensure transparent and consistent enforcement risks weakening both the rule of law and citizens’ confidence in equal justice. Critics have alleged that Adams may have bargained with the DOJ and President Trump to have his charges dismissed in exchange for aiding President Trump with his immigration agenda. [13] The DOJ’s initial attempt to drop the case without prejudice also raised eyebrows in the court. Judge Ho believed that possible efforts by the DOJ to reindict Adams would make him attend to the “demands of the federal government rather than to the wishes of his own constituents.” [14] In the case of the dismissal with prejudice, as opposed to without prejudice, it seems that Judge Ho’s decision was a reasoned effort to balance conflicting institutional interests. This has been viewed by some as a procedural compromise where the DOJ was not given that leverage over Adams, while still preventing the case from going to trial. Despite this, the dismissal continued to raise questions among New Yorkers. To place Judge Ho’s reasoning in context, relevant precedent must be considered. [15]
When looking at United States v. Adams, one relatively recent case jumps out for its similarities, which also has several references in Judge Ho’s opinion. The 2017 case United States v. Flynn similarly featured a high-profile government official, former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. [16] Flynn, a former Army general, was charged with “willfully and knowingly making materially false statements” to the FBI regarding his ties with Russian officials. [17] In December 2017, Flynn agreed to a plea deal, and the court accepted his guilty plea. However, before sentencing was set to begin, Flynn withdrew his plea and filed a motion to dismiss in January 2020. [18] After initial opposition, in May, the DOJ too filed a motion to dismiss the case with prejudice through Rule 48(a), which calls for a dismissal without prejudice. Despite pushbacks from Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, a decision was never reached regarding the dismissal of this case, as President Trump granted Flynn, his former political ally and advisor, a full pardon. This case raised broader questions about prosecutorial discretion in a politically sensitive context. Namely, what would have happened had the pardon not been granted—a question addressed, in part, by In re Flynn.
In re Flynn, a mandamus action following the DOJ’s Rule 48(a) motion, held that decisions to dismiss a case fall within prosecutorial discretion, rather than the judiciary. According to precedent, the DOJ and the executive branch are granted a presumption of regularity. [19] Judge Ho used this point in the Adams dismissal, giving respect to the executive and honoring their request. The presumption of regularity assumes the prosecution acts in good faith unless proven otherwise. In the mandamus, the DC Circuit said Judge Sullivan’s questioning of DOJ motives could be deemed judicial overreach and warned against it in similar cases. Judge Ho considered this in his handling of Adams. [20] Judge Ho handled United States v. Adams according to precedent by respecting the DOJ’s wish to dismiss, but not granting dismissal without prejudice. In re Flynn also cited reasons for rejecting Rule 48(a) in cases with political implications. Dismissal with prejudice is a safeguard against prosecutorial harassment, such as threats of reindictment. [21] Judge Ho emphasized that his decision to reject the dismissal without prejudice was not an effort to undermine political accountability; rather, he stated that it was to “preclude an attempt by the federal executive branch to coerce a state or local official into implementing federal policy objectives.” [22] This was an attempt to both respect the executive branch’s request as well as protect against the coercion of elected officials.
The original question of what the limitations on prosecutorial discretion in cases relating to government officials in the context of United States v. Adams are answered by both Judge Ho’s opinion and In re Flynn. The court must respect the executive branch’s exclusive prosecutorial power and executive primacy, unless there is “clear evidence to the contrary,” which would contradict the presumption of regularity. [23] This is upheld in the Adams case. This case highlights the relation between the executive and judicial branches when it comes to corruption cases, and the limited relevance of the matter of the case in prosecutorial discretion. Judge Ho upholds precedent from In re Flynn, affirming that the judiciary’s role in Rule 48(a) dismissals is limited, with the notable exception being to prevent coercion through prosecutorial harassment. There were no clear winners in this case in the public eye, with all facing public scrutiny; nonetheless, this usage of prosecutorial discretion is backed by precedent.
Ultimately, the DOJ retains a broad discretion to dismiss cases, even in cases like United States v. Adams, where substantial allegations were made. The general public’s verdict is evident, as 40% of New Yorkers believe Adams did something illegal, while 31 percent believe he did something unethical but not illegal. [24] However, in the legal context, this case does follow legal precedent. Due to the nature of the separation of powers principle, the judiciary has limited power to oppose prosecutorial discretion, and Judge Ho’s rejection of the initial Rule 48(a) motion can be seen as the extent of the judiciary in these cases. Clear evidence of ill intentions is needed to combat the presumption of good faith within the DOJ. In all other cases, the court is expected to honor the dismissal, limiting deliberation to only procedural matters such as whether to dismiss with or without prejudice. The public opinion is clear. However, the role of public accountability is often limited in these legal cases, but crucial in other aspects. Adams, as an elected official, stands on trial before the citizens of the City of New York every four years. The public disapproval of Adams or of any elected official can have consequences on the ballot, if not in court. Adams was once seen as a rising star in New York politics and has seen both career highs and lows. Due to his corruption and bribery allegations, his approval ratings took a sharp turn, which contributed to his announcement to end his re-election bid on September 28, 2025. [25] A majority of New Yorkers believe that Adams conducted an improper relationship with a foreign government, a perception that will impact assessments of his tenure. Judge Ho adhered to the established precedent; however, when judicial review reaches its extent, the electorate has the ability to preserve accountability through the democratic process.
Sources
United States v. Adams, No. 24 Cr. 556 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 24, 2024) (Indictment).
Ibid.
Ibid.
“Mayor Adams’ Job Approval Rating Drops to All-Time Low of 20%, Quinnipiac University New York City Poll Finds; 56% of Voters Say Adams Should Resign from Office | Quinnipiac University Poll,” Quinnipiac University Poll, March 5, 2025, https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3920.
Jake Offenhartz, Alanna Durkin Richer, and Eric Tucker, “Top Justice Department Official Orders Prosecutors to Drop Charges against New York Mayor Eric Adams,” AP News, February 10, 2025, https://apnews.com/article/eric-adams-indictment-109ef48bd49bc8adc1850709c99bf666.
Ibid.
Jennifer Peltz and Michael R Sisak, “Judge Dismisses Corruption Case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams,” AP News, April 2, 2025, https://apnews.com/article/new-york-mayor-eric-adams-charges-ff3730a2e870cd219e8fead8899118b1.
United States v. Adams, No. 24 Cr. 556 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2025) (Opinion and Order).
Quinnipiac University Poll, March 5, 2025.
United States v. Adams, No. 24 Cr. 556 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2025).
Stephanos Bibas, “The Need for Prosecutorial Discretion,” n.d., https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2428&context=faculty_scholarship.
Ibid.
Peltz and Sisak, “Judge Dismisses Corruption Case.”
United States v. Adams, No. 24 Cr. 556 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2025).
Ibid.
United States v. Flynn, No. 17 Cr. 232 (EGS) (D.D.C. Dec. 8, 2020) (Memorandum Opinion).
Ibid.
Ibid.
In re Michael Flynn, No. 20-5143 (D.C. Cir. 2020).
Ibid.
Ibid.
United States v. Adams, No. 24 Cr. 556 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2025).
In re Michael Flynn, No. 20-5143.
Quinnipiac University Poll, March 5, 2025.
Aoife Walsh, “Eric Adams Ends Re-Election Bid for New York City Mayor,” BBC (BBC News, September 28, 2025), https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn761nkz6l5o.