S.D.N.Y. U.S. Attorney Resigns Over The Eric Adams Case
Now-former Acting U.S. Attorney Danielle Sassoon and Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove duked it out in dueling letters.
Welcome to Original Jurisdiction, the latest legal publication by me, David Lat. You can learn more about Original Jurisdiction by reading its About page, and you can email me at davidlat@substack.com. This is a reader-supported publication; you can subscribe by clicking here.
Did we just witness… a Thursday Afternoon Massacre?
On Wednesday, February 12, Danielle Sassoon, at the time the Acting U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.), sent an eight-page letter to U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi. In her letter, Sassoon objected strongly to a February 10 memo she received from Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove, in which he directed her to dismiss the S.D.N.Y.’s indictment against Mayor Eric Adams.
Sassoon’s objections were apparently dismissed by the powers that be at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) headquarters down in Washington, D.C. (aka Main Justice). So Sassoon then resigned as acting U.S. attorney, by email, at approximately 1:50 p.m. today (Thursday). Bove then sent Sassoon an eight-page letter of his own, responding to Sassoon’s concerns—and accepting her resignation.
Bove declared in his letter that the Adams prosecution would be transferred to Main Justice, which would then file a motion to dismiss the indictment under Rule 48 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. But the two prosecutors at Main Justice who were asked to take over the Adams case—John Keller, acting head of DOJ’s Public Integrity Section, and Kevin Driscoll, the most senior career Justice Department official leading the Criminal Division—also resigned over the Adams matter.
Having read the letters of Sassoon and Bove, which don’t pull their punches, I side with Sassoon. Dismissing the Adams indictment strikes me as unwarranted. If Donald Trump wants the case to go away, he should pardon Adams, which is his prerogative (and which Sassoon suggested as a more appropriate course of action).
In my view, Sassoon, Keller, and Driscoll did the right thing: they resigned after being told to take a course of action that they viewed as unacceptable. Query whether other DOJ or Trump administration officials will do the same if pressured or directed to engage in improper, unethical, or illegal actions.
As president, Donald Trump has the power to make the Eric Adams case go away. But he isn’t entitled to have any particular prosecutors do his dirty work; they always have the option to resign.
Now someone who is actually willing to file the dismissal motion—perhaps Emil Bove himself—can step up to the plate. And Donald Trump can “own” this decision politically, instead of being able to claim that it was done by career prosecutors. If there is a political price to be paid (or political benefit to be gained) from dismissing the Adams case, it should come from (or go to) Trump. At the end of the day, it’s about accountability—a value that conservatives frequently invoke when discussing the separation of powers.
This is a Notice and Comment (N&C) post, so comments are open to all, not just paid subscribers. I urge you to read Danielle Sassoon’s letter to Pam Bondi and Emil Bove’s letter to Danielle Sassoon, then share your thoughts on what just transpired in the comments. As always, I’m open to hearing views that diverge from my own.
UPDATES:
10:34 p.m. As noted by folks in the comments, three other lawyers in the Public Integrity Section also resigned, according to The New York Times and The Washington Post.
2/14/2025, 1:02 p.m. Another prosecutor, Hagan Scotten, also resigned from his post as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District.
2/17/2025, 11:13 p.m. For updates and additional commentary on the Thursday Afternoon Massacre, please see Judicial Notice (02.17.25): Constitutional Crisis?
Thanks for reading Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to my paid subscribers for making this publication possible. Subscribers get (1) access to Judicial Notice, my time-saving weekly roundup of the most notable news in the legal world; (2) additional stories reserved for paid subscribers; (3) transcripts of podcast interviews; and (4) the ability to comment on posts. You can email me at davidlat@substack.com with questions or comments, and you can share this post or subscribe using the buttons below.
Bove begins by stating in his first paragraph that Sassoon had "...no discretion" when it came to following the orders of the President or the Attorney General. Legally, she is not obligated to comply with what she believes to be an illegal order. This situation is analogous to a soldier being ordered to kill an innocent civilian—does that soldier also lack discretion?
In summary, Bove advocates for a type of authoritarianism, while Sassoon stands firm in her decision to refuse. This reflects courage on her part and cowardice on his.
It’s actually worse than just a dismissal. This is a dismissal without prejudice so that DOJ can leverage any failure to satisfy the Administration politically into refiled charges. Sassoon rightly suggests that this disposition would be a fundamentally corrupt one, which isn’t surprising given everything this Administration is doing right now to further corruption, including suspending enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Elect a fundamentally corrupt candidate and you get a fundamentally corrupt administration.