The judge overseeing Mayor Eric Adams’ criminal case early Tuesday ordered the Trump Justice Department and Adams’ lawyers to appear before him to explain their highly unusual move to dismiss the case in exchange for helping the istration in its signature effort to deport undocumented immigrants.

Manhattan Federal Judge Dale Ho issued his order requiring the main Justice attorneys shepherding the dismissal request to show up in his court on Wednesday at 2 p.m. to address “the reasons for the Government’s motion” to dismiss.

The judge, who has final say over the dismissal request, also demanded they provide evidence that Adams has consented in writing to accepting that the motion is filed “without prejudice,” which means it could be reopened again after the November election. Ho asked the Justice Department to explain the “scope and effect” of his consent.

In ordering both sides to appear before him at the Thurgood Marshall Courthouse in Foley Square, Ho quoted a case, U.S. v. Ammidown, stating, “Since the court must exercise sound judicial discretion in considering a request for dismissal, it must have sufficient factual information ing the recommendation.” To sign off on the dismissal of a case, the court “should be satisfied that the reasons advanced for the proposed dismissal are substantial.”

One good-government group is already asking the judge to slam on the brakes.

On Monday a lawyer for Common Cause, the non-partisan government watchdog, demanded that Manhattan Federal Judge Dale Ho reject the Justice Department’s motion to toss the case, calling the arrangement a “corrupt quid pro quo bargain” and arguing that terminating the case against Adams is “contrary to the public’s interest.”

A letter motion filed by attorney Nathaniel Akerman, a former Manhattan federal prosecutor, contends that the agreement gives the Justice Department control over the mayor’s actions, noting that motion was made “without prejudice” and allows the case to potentially be reopened after the November election.

“This qualification on the dismissal provides the Trump istration with potent leverage over Mr. Adams to ensure he follows the istration’s directives or else the indictment will be reinstated,” Akerman wrote.

The dismissal deal was pulled together by Emil Bove, formerly one of Trump’s criminal defense attorneys and now acting deputy attorney general. 

Last week seven federal prosecutors, including Acting Manhattan U.S. Attorney Danielle Sassoon, refused Bove’s order to dismiss the case and resigned.

Sassoon fought to keep the case alive, pointing out in a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi that Bove had not taken a position on the merits of the case and noting that although Bove denied “any intention to exchange leniency in this case for Adams’ assistance in enforcing federal law, that is the nature of the bargain.”

She recounted that during a Jan. 31 meeting between Bove, Southern District of New York prosecutors and Adams’ attorneys, the mayor’s lawyers “repeatedly urged what amounted to a quid pro quo indicating that Adams would be in a position  to assist the Department’s enforcement priorities only if the indictment were dismissed.” Adams’ attorney, Alex Spiro, has denied linking the dismissal to the mayor’s cooperation with the Trump team on immigration.

Daniel Richman, a former Manhattan federal prosecutor and a professor at Columbia Law School, in an op-ed for the New York Times, wrote that Judge Ho could adopt Sassoon’s argument and find that “a quid pro quo is not in the public interest.”

Due to the apparently transactional nature of the arrangement, Richman contended Judge Ho could also look at the motion to dismiss as essentially the Trump istration extorting Adams’ cooperation with its signature initiative on mass deportation.

“Another thing (the judge) can do is — and the cases are actually quite strong — is make sure a dismissal isn’t being done for the purpose of harassing a defendant,” Richman wrote. “To the extent that one worries with some basis that the charges, if dismissed without prejudice, are being held over him to coerce his cooperation in the immigration enforcement — you could say this is harassment.”

Rinaldi v. U.S.

In arguing that Ho should refuse to approve the dismissal motion, Common Cause’s lawyer, Akerman, cited a 1977 case known as Rinaldi v United States, in which a federal court rejected a prosecutor’s request to withdraw a case against a man convicted of robbery in state court, then prosecuted again in federal court. 

The district court in that case noted that the court is empowered to reject a dismissal motion “if the motion is prompted by considerations clearly contrary to the public interest.”

Akerman argued that there’s “overwhelming evidence from DOJ’s own internal documents showing that the dismissal of the Adams indictment is not in the public interest and is part of a corrupt quid pro quo between the Mayor Adams and the Trump istration.”

Since this internal Justice Department document became public last week, a growing number of public officials have embraced the quid pro quo view of the dismissal effort and called on Adams to resign. 

On Monday called for him to step down, declaring, “This istration no longer has the ability to effectively govern with Eric Adams as mayor.

Akerman also raised the possibility of Judge Ho appointing a special counsel to revisit the events that led to the Justice Department’s position on Adams’ case, and also consider bringing on a special counsel to continue prosecuting the case. In her letter to Bondi, Sassoon noted the office was preparing a superseding indictment against Adams that included new charges, including allegations that he destroyed evidence, directed others to do so too, and lied to federal law enforcement.

How this will play out remains to be seen. The Justice Department is required to provide some explanation for its decision, and Judge Ho could hold a hearing, possibly this week, requiring Bove to appear in his courtroom in Lower Manhattan and spell out in detail how the decision came to be.

“He certainly can make inquiries as to their reasoning,” Richman said. “How much inquiry he can make is a little unclear.”

One possibility Richman raised would be to remove the allegedly coercive nature of the arrangement by requiring that the case be dismissed with prejudice – meaning it could not be reopened by the Justice Department.

“At the end of the day the judge is not going to be able to require a prosecution to be brought that the justice department does not want brought,” Richman noted. “His space is this inquiry and his decision set is whether to permit the government to dismiss without prejudice or whether to dismiss with prejudice.”