Paul D. Clement, the lawyer whom a federal judge asked to deliver independent arguments on the Trump Justice Department’s motion to dismiss the corruption case against Mayor Eric Adams of New York, is to deliver his views to the court on Friday.
The widely anticipated filing was sought by the judge, Dale E. Ho, because the Justice Department and Mr. Adams — adversaries when the case was brought in September during the Biden administration — are now on the same side.
The department’s new leadership, under President Trump, agrees with Mr. Adams that the prosecution should end. The motion says the case hindered the mayor from cooperating with President Trump’s immigration crackdown.
Mr. Adams, a Democrat, was indicted in September on bribery, fraud and other charges. He has pleaded not guilty and has denied wrongdoing. The department’s decision to seek dismissal of the charges threw the case into tumult, leading to the resignations of prosecutors in Manhattan and Washington and calls by several of Mr. Adams’s campaign opponents that he step down. The trial was postponed indefinitely.
Mr. Clement, who was U.S. solicitor general during President George W. Bush’s administration, has argued more than 100 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. Now in private practice, he has continued to litigate, with a focus on conservative causes.
The judge has already received briefs from other outsiders, like Common Cause, a good-government advocacy organization, as well as former U.S. attorneys, federal judges, law professors and ethics experts. There was even a filing by Michael T. Flynn, a national security adviser to President Trump in his first term.
Judge Ho said he wanted Mr. Clement’s views to help him in his decision-making. Normally in criminal cases, judges rely on the adversarial process to “advance the public interest in truth and fairness,” Judge Ho wrote last month.
But, with the parties in accord, Judge Ho added, “there has been no adversarial testing of the government’s position.”
Here’s what to know about the case:
Who are the other key players?
Emil Bove III, a top Justice Department official, filed the motion seeking dismissal of the charges on Feb. 14. Mr. Bove acted after Danielle R. Sassoon, the interim Manhattan U.S. attorney, refused his order to file the papers.
Ms. Sassoon, in a Feb. 12 letter offering her resignation, criticized what she depicted as a quid pro quo with the mayor, saying the arrangement would set “a breathtaking and dangerous precedent.”
Mr. Bove, in a letter to Ms. Sassoon accepting her resignation, accused her of choosing “to continue pursuing a politically motivated prosecution despite an express instruction to dismiss the case.” He said he was transferring the case to the Justice Department in Washington.
Both Mr. Bove and Mr. Adams’s lawyer, Alex Spiro, have denied there was any deal to win the mayor’s support.
What issues will Mr. Clement address?
Judge Ho listed half a dozen questions for Mr. Clement.
One was whether the judge can consider materials beyond Mr. Bove’s four-page dismissal motion and its rationale for dropping the charges.
According to the motion, Mr. Bove concluded that the prosecution would interfere with Mr. Adams’s ability to govern, “which poses unacceptable threats to public safety, national security and related federal immigration initiatives and policies.”
Mr. Bove’s motion also said the dismissal was necessary because of “appearances of impropriety and risks of interference with the 2025 elections in New York City.”
If Judge Ho considers other documents, they could include Ms. Sassoon’s blistering Feb. 12 letter, in which she raises the quid pro quo issue and calls the order to seek dismissal “inconsistent with my ability and duty to prosecute federal crimes without fear or favor and to advance good-faith arguments before the courts.”
Mr. Bove, responding to Judge Ho in court, said although the judge had limited discretion in deciding the government’s motion, “considering documents outside the record I don’t think is part of that discretion.”
Could Mr. Clement suggest a middle way?
Another of the judge’s questions asks about a provision of Mr. Bove’s motion that the dismissal would be “without prejudice,” meaning charges could be reinstated.
Mr. Adams’s critics say that provision would make the mayor more beholden to Mr. Trump than to his constituents.
The question suggests Judge Ho might be weighing whether to grant the motion but require the dismissal to be “with prejudice” — meaning charges could not be reinstated. Judge Ho might not want to allow the threat of a criminal charge to be held over the mayor’s head as a means of coercion.
Mr. Adams, in the recent hearing, said he was not afraid of another indictment. “I have not committed a crime, and I don’t see them bringing it back,” the mayor said.
Could the case die of neglect?
Judge Ho also asked Mr. Clement “what practical consequences would follow” if the judge left the indictment in place.
The judge suggested one possibility: that the Justice Department would refuse to further prosecute and as time passed, dismissal would become “appropriate or necessary” under other legal principles, like the speedy trial rule.