Daily TribuneFederal attorneys resign rather than abandon case against Eric Adams, citing political interference
Share
New York City Mayor Eric Adams
Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images/AFP
Share
A legal firestorm is brewing in New York, as multiple federal prosecutors—including Manhattan’s top federal attorney Danielle Sassoon—have resigned in protest over an order from the Trump administration’s Justice Department to drop the corruption case against Mayor Eric Adams.
The resignations signal a rare and public act of defiance within the Department of Justice (DOJ), where seasoned legal officials insist that the move is an unprecedented political intervention aimed at shielding the embattled mayor.
Among those who stepped down was Hagan Scotten, an assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, who left no doubt about his outrage.
"No system of liberty can allow the government to use the carrot of dismissing charges, or the stick of threatening to bring them again, to induce an elected official to support its policy objectives," Scotten wrote in his resignation letter.
Sassoon, a Trump-appointed prosecutor and a former clerk for Chief Justice John Roberts, also resigned, stating that the demand to drop the case against Adams was "inconsistent with my duty to prosecute federal crimes without fear or favor."
Scotten, in his blistering resignation letter, directly called out the Justice Department’s leadership, writing:
"I expect you will eventually find someone who is enough of a fool, or enough of a coward, to file your motion. But it was never going to be me."
The sharp rebuke underscores the tension between career prosecutors and the Trump administration, which has been aggressively reshaping the DOJ’s priorities since taking office.
I expect you will eventually find someone who is enough of a fool, or enough of a coward, to file your motion. But it was never going to be me.Hagan Scotten, Assistant District Attorney
The order to dismiss Adams’ corruption case came just days after the Democratic mayor expressed a willingness to work with Trump’s administration on immigration policy—including lifting restrictions on Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations in New York City.
Critics argue that Adams' sudden cooperation with Trump’s anti-immigration agenda is an attempt to curry favor in exchange for legal protection.
The Immigrant Defense Project, a leading advocacy group, labeled Adams' reversal "shameless", accusing him of "targeting immigrants in a quid pro quo with President Trump to get his corruption charges dropped."
The Trump administration has dismissed the resignations as politically motivated theatrics, insisting that dropping the charges against Adams is about focusing on violent crime and illegal immigration.
Chad Mizelle, DOJ Chief of Staff, argued that the resignations prove the case was "a politically motivated witch hunt."
"The fact that those who indicted and prosecuted the case refused to follow a direct command is further proof of their disordered and ulterior motives," Mizelle said. "Such individuals have no place at DOJ."
However, New York Governor Kathy Hochul slammed the Justice Department’s actions, calling them "unbelievably unprecedented" and accusing Attorney General Pam Bondi of undermining legal independence.
"The Bondi administration in the DOJ is already showing they’re corrupt," Hochul said in an MSNBC interview.
Despite calls for Adams to resign or be removed from office, Hochul maintained that while the allegations are serious, she would not make a knee-jerk political decision.
The fallout from the Adams case is likely to intensify, with legal experts warning that the independence of federal prosecutions is now under threat. The resignations of career prosecutors—some of whom had previously worked under Republican administrations—highlight the growing tensions over the DOJ’s role in high-profile cases.
As the Senate considers Trump's permanent nominee for U.S. attorney in Manhattan, legal analysts expect continued scrutiny over the DOJ’s approach to public corruption cases—and whether political pressure will dictate future indictments.
