Farewell, Justice Department Independence

Over just a few days last week, the Trump administration made a laughingstock of the U.S. Department of Justice. The department’s decision to seek the dismissal of a corruption indictment against Mayor Eric Adams of New York led seven prosecutors handling the case to resign in disgust.

The acting deputy attorney general, Emil Bove, said the indictment should be dismissed in part because the prosecution would interfere with Mr. Adams’s ability to carry out President Trump’s immigration crackdown. To ensure Mr. Adams’s obedience, the indictment would be dismissed without prejudice so the department could resurrect it at any time.

Such an overtly political act is a dangerous departure from the list of legitimate reasons a prosecutor might forgo a prosecution, as Danielle Sassoon, the interim U.S. attorney in New York who resigned rather than carry out Mr. Bove’s order, pointed out in her letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi.

Using the prospect of criminal prosecution to obtain Mr. Adams’s future political cooperation makes the mayor beholden to someone other than his constituents, dangerously crossing a line. Imagine, for example, a president agreeing to hold off bringing corruption charges against a U.S. senator of the other party, as long as that senator signs on to the president’s agenda. In light of last week’s events, this crass scenario has suddenly become plausible.

At least once a generation, the Department of Justice encounters a serious challenge to its ability to impartially enforce the law. Each new generation forgets the lessons of the past.