4 Takeaways From the Hearing on Dismissing Charges Against Eric Adams

A federal judge on Wednesday afternoon questioned Mayor Eric Adams of New York, Mr. Adams’s lawyer and a top Justice Department official over the department’s decision to seek the dismissal of corruption charges against Mr. Adams.

It was the latest episode in a legal saga that has led to resignations of prosecutors and city officials and calls for the mayor to be removed from office.

For a hearing on a request that has roiled New York’s political and legal communities, the proceedings on Wednesday were surprisingly tame. For 90 minutes, the judge, Dale E. Ho, methodically examined the rationale of the Justice Department official, Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove III, for requesting to dismiss the charges without prejudice (which means they could be brought again in the future). He also sought to establish that Mr. Adams had knowingly consented to the government’s motion.

Mr. Adams was indicted in September on charges of bribery, fraud, soliciting illegal foreign campaign contributions and conspiracy as part of a scheme involving the Turkish government. On Wednesday, Mr. Bove argued that dismissing the case was “a standard exercise of prosecutorial discretion,” and that Mr. Adams’s indictment had negatively affected the “national security and immigration objectives” of President Trump.

Here are four takeaways from the hearing:

Mr. Adams appeared confident in court.

The mayor was jeered on Wednesday when he arrived at the courthouse in Lower Manhattan. A small crowd of protesters chanted “We don’t need a MAGA mayor — Adams out now!” But Mr. Adams, smiling, strode past them, flashing a thumbs up.

Inside the courtroom, he projected a similar calm as Judge Ho asked questions related to allegations that the Justice Department was seeking to drop the charges in exchange for his cooperation with Mr. Trump’s immigration policies — which have set off a crisis of confidence about Mr. Adams’s independence. The mayor told the judge under oath that he had not been coerced or made a deal with prosecutors. He also confirmed that he understood that the Justice Department could revive the case against him.

“I have not committed a crime, and I don’t see them bringing it back,” Mr. Adams said, sitting next to his lawyer, Alex Spiro. “I’m not afraid of that.”

The judge did not tip his hand.

Judge Ho was even-keeled as he waded into a court case with unprecedented implications for the Justice Department, and with little precedent to refer to.

He questioned both sets of lawyers, and at times appeared self-deprecating, even apologizing for his “elementary” questions. But he also appeared to go out of his way to create a meticulous record that he can scrutinize as he weighs how to rule.

To be sure, his role is narrow: whether to dismiss a case based on a motion from the Justice Department. But his ruling will have an immediate effect on the future of the mayor of America’s largest city, and may well hold implications for how justice will be administered during President Trump’s second term. Aware of this, he took care to ask both simple and complex questions and to reiterate each position clearly after arguments were presented.

The lawyers appeared defensive at times.

The hearing was procedurally unique, as there was no lawyer or party arguing in court to keep the case against Mr. Adams alive. That kept the proceeding largely amicable.

But Mr. Bove and Mr. Adams’s lawyers grew defensive at times as the hearing wore on, notably when Judge Ho asked whether the case was being dismissed as part of a quid pro quo with the mayor. They also pushed back when Mr. Ho raised “friend of the court” briefs from outsiders arguing against the government’s request to drop the charges.

“You have a record, undisputed, that there is no quid pro quo,” Mr. Bove said. He later called one brief challenging the government’s case, which was filed on behalf of a series of former U.S. attorneys, “partisan noise.”

For his part, Mr. Spiro said that a quid pro quo “never happened” and then swore to an oath in court to that effect, something that Judge Ho did not ask him to do. And in an emotional plea toward the end of the hearing, Mr. Spiro claimed that Mr. Adams was being “actively harmed by this ongoing process.”

A delayed decision, and strong words

Although Judge Ho acknowledged that it was “not in anyone’s interest here for this to drag on,” he told the parties that he did not want to “shoot from the hip” and issue a decision during the hearing. He did not give a specific timeline and asked for “patience as I consider these issues carefully.”

In the meantime, it doesn’t appear that emotions over the case will cool anytime soon. After the hearing, Mr. Bove released a blistering statement inviting other Justice Department officials to resign if they disagreed with the request to dismiss the charges against Mr. Adams

“For those who do not support our critical mission, I understand there are templates for resignation letters available on the websites of The New York Times and CNN,” Mr. Bove wrote.