Judge weighing dismissal of NYC mayor's case cancels hearing, suggesting a ruling could be near
The judge weighing the Justice Department 's request to dismiss corruption charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams has canceled a hearing scheduled for Friday, indicating a ruling could be imminent.
In a written order Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Dale E. Ho said he has reviewed filings from the parties and a court-appointed legal expert, all of whom favor dismissal, and 'does not at this time believe that oral argument is necessary."
The only disagreement among the parties and the expert, former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, appeared to be whether a dismissal should be permanent.
The Justice Department is seeking the option to refile the case after the November mayoral election.
Clement recommended that Ho prevent the charges from being refiled — known in legal parlance as dismissal with prejudice — so they don't hang over Adams 'like the proverbial Sword of Damocles.' Adams' lawyers have also asked for a permanent dismissal.
The mayor, who is up for reelection this year, had pleaded not guilty to bribery and other charges. A 2024 indictment accused him of accepting illegal campaign contributions and travel discounts from a Turkish official and others — and returning the favors by, among other things, helping Turkey get a consulate open without passing a fire inspection.
The case, brought during the Biden administration, was on track for an April trial until President Donald Trump's Justice Department moved last month to drop it, arguing that the case was interfering with the mayor's ability to aid the president's crackdown on illegal immigration.
After an extraordinary hearing where Adams' lawyer and a top Justice Department official argued for ending the case, Ho canceled the trial and appointed Clement to assist him in deciding what to do.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
4 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Mahmoud Khalil can't be held by Trump administration for now: judge
Khalil, who is a lawful permanent resident, has been held in a detention facility in Louisiana since he was detained in his university-owned New York City apartment building lobby in March. His lawyers have fought for his release to be with his wife and newborn son, Deen. The Trump administration has said it stripped him of his legal status for his role in pro-Palestinian protests at the Ivy League campus in New York City. Rubio had cited an obscure provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. It allows the secretary of state to remove someone if there was reason to believe the person's activities or presence in the country affect American foreign policy interests. Farbiarz ruled against Rubio's authority to remove Khalil, citing harm to Khalil's career and reputation, and that it was chilling his right to speech. "This adds up to irreparable harm," he said. Neither the Justice Department nor the State Department immediately returned requests for comment. Khalil's lawyers didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. The administration has also sought Khalil's removal based on failure to accurately complete his residency application. However, Farbiarz noted that "lawful permanent residents are virtually never detained pending removal for the sort of alleged omissions in a lawful-permanent-resident application that the Petitioner is charged with here." Farbiarz said it was "overwhelmingly likely" that Khalil wouldn't be detained solely on an application issue. Instead, Khalil's detention "almost surely flows" from Rubio's determination. However, Farbiarz stayed his preliminary injunction until the morning of June 13, allowing the government time to appeal the case. He also said the preliminary injunction wouldn't go into effect until Khalil posts a nominal bond of $1. Eduardo Cuevas is based in New York City. Reach him by email at emcuevas1@ or on Signal at emcuevas.01.
The Independent
13 hours ago
- The Independent
Trump gets the OK to end protections for national monuments, from the Statue of Liberty to the Grand Canyon
President Donald Trump has the authority to abolish national monuments protected by his predecessors, the Justice Department recently said. In a legal document dated to May 27, the department overturned a nearly 90-year-old opinion that said presidents did not have that ability, saying that its conclusions were 'wrong' and 'can no longer be relied upon.' ' The Antiquities Act of 1906 permits a president to alter a prior declaration of a national monument, including by finding that the 'landmarks,' 'structures,' or 'objects' identified in the prior declaration either never were or no longer are deserving of the act's protections; and such an alteration can have the effect of eliminating entirely the reservation of the parcel of land previously associated with a national monument,' the Office of Legal Counsel's Deputy Assistant Attorney General Lanora Pettit wrote. ' The contrary conclusion of the Attorney General in Proposed Abolishment of Castle Pinckney National Monument, 39 Op. Att'y Gen. 185 (1938), was incorrect.' The document specifically refers to former President Joe Biden establishing California's Chuckwalla and Sáttítla Highlands National Monuments. The monuments, that have particular significance to Native American tribes and extend over some 848,000 acres of land, barred oil and natural gas drilling and mining there. The Trump administration told The Washington Post in March that it has plans to eliminate them. In April, the paper reported that Interior Department Officials were studying whether to scale back at least six national monuments, and a person briefed on the matter said the aim was to free up land for drilling and mining. Biden established 10 new monuments during his tenure. 'America's energy infrastructure was on life-support when President Trump got into office; and in nearly six months, the administration has shocked this critical industry back into life, making good on another promise to the American people,' the White House's Harrison Fields, principal deputy press secretary, told The Independent in an emailed statement responding to question about the Justice Department's opinion. 'It's imperative that the Senate passes OBBB to completely end Biden's war on American energy, and will liberate our federal lands and waters to oil, gas, coal, geothermal, and mineral leasing.' The Justice Department did not immediately respond to The Independent's request for comment on the matter. While this opinion does not overturn any national monument, it hints at future action. Trump has taken steps to shrink monuments in the past. During his first administration, he moved to slash Utah's Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments: the first such move of its kind in more than 50 years. Biden reversed Trump's decision before the courts could make a final ruling on the matter. Earlier this year, Trump opened the Pacific Islands Heritage Marine national monument to commercial fishing while leaving the monument in place. The Interior Department is weighing changes to monuments across the country as part of the push to 'restore American energy dominance.' The National Park Service alone manages more than 100 national monuments established under the authority of the Antiquities Act. Some are also co-managed by the U.S. and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Army, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Some of those include the Statue of Liberty, the Stonewall Inn, the Grand Canyon, Sequoia National Forest, and the Lincoln Memorial. While Congress must approve the designation of national parks, a national monument is designated by a president via the Antiquities Act. Around half of the nation's national parks were first designated monuments, and all except three presidents have used the act to protect areas both offshore and on land. Presidents, including Dwight Eisenhower, have also diminished monuments. Responding to the document, environmental advocate groups have asserted there might not be much legal standing and that moves to eliminate or shrink monuments would be less than popular. "There's no reason to think the OLC opinion should make much difference to the White House. National monuments have broad public and political support, and shrinking or revoking them will only damage the Trump Administration's popularity,' Aaron Paul, the staff attorney for the Grand Canyon Trust, told The Independent in an emailed statement. 'Besides, if the president tries to shrink or eliminate monuments, it would send the question to the courts, which is the real test of whether the OLC's views have any validity or not." 'The Trump administration can come to whatever conclusion it likes, but the courts have upheld monuments established under the Antiquities Act for over a century. This opinion is just that, an opinion. It does not mean presidents can legally shrink or eliminate monuments at will,' Jennifer Rokala, executive director of The Center for Western Priorities, said in a written statement. 'Once again the Trump administration finds itself on the wrong side of history and at odds with Western voters,' she said.
Reuters
15 hours ago
- Reuters
ABA calls Bondi's decision to curtail judicial nominee vetting 'disturbing'
June 11 (Reuters) - The American Bar Association called the U.S. Department of Justice's decision to curtail its ability to vet President Donald Trump's judicial nominees "deeply disturbing" in a letter, opens new tab to U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi released late on Tuesday. ABA President William Bay said the nonpartisan lawyer organization was "surprised and disappointed" by the department's recent decision to restrict its access to judicial nominees and information about them for the first time in seven decades. "The changes the Justice Department is apparently imposing will likely result in less transparency in the process of confirming nominees to lifetime appointments on the federal bench and appear to be based on incorrect information," Bay wrote. He urged Bondi to reconsider, saying the ABA's past access to nominees helped U.S. senators receive important insights about them during the confirmation process and "helps bolster the public's trust and confidence in our federal courts." The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Starting in 1953 during Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower's tenure, the ABA through its 15-member Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has vetted judicial nominees before they were sent to the Senate, which must confirm them. Republicans have long claimed the organization is biased against conservatives. In 2001, Republican President George W. Bush ended the tradition of giving the ABA a first look at nominees. While Democratic President Barack Obama revived the practice, Trump ended it again in 2017 in his first term, and Democratic President Joe Biden did not revive the practice. The Justice Department's May 30 decision to cease directing nominees to fill out questionnaires from the ABA and provide waivers allowing it access to their bar and disciplinary records marked a further diminishment of the group's vetting role. In a May 29 letter to the ABA, Bondi contended that the ABA "no longer functions as a fair arbiter of nominees' qualifications, and its ratings invariably and demonstrably favor nominees put forth by Democratic administrations." During the first Trump administration, the ABA rated 10 of Trump's judicial nominees as "not qualified." He secured confirmation of 234 judicial nominees. Senate Democrats and Trump's critics say several of his 11 announced second-term judicial picks fall short of the ABA's typical standard that a nominee should have at least 12 years of experience in the practice of law. Among the young nominees to life-tenured positions on the bench who fall short of that metric is Whitney Hermandorfer, 37, who only graduated law school 10 years ago. She is nominated to join the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Bay, in his letter, said the ABA's Standing Committee does not advocate for nominees and had issued "Well Qualified" or "Qualified" ratings to no less than 96.9% of the nominees in each presidential administration during the last two decades, including during the first Trump administration. Read more: Justice Department curtails ABA role in vetting Trump's judicial nominees Trump nominates his former defense attorney Emil Bove to serve as appellate judge Trump readies to name 'fearless' conservative judges in second term
