There have been a lot of posts recently about the Department of Justice's treatment of the Eric Adams prosecution. I wanted to pass along this additional perspective I received from Professor Ryan Snyder of the University of Missouri, based on his recent article Trading Nonenforcement:
If There Was A Quid Pro Quo in the Eric Adams Case, It's Unconstitutional
Ryan Snyder
Last week, according to acting U.S. Attorney Danielle Sassoon, the Trump Justice Department made a deal with New York City Mayor Eric Adams: help enforce federal immigration law, and we'll drop the public-corruption case against you. People have rightly criticized that trade as politically motivated, as a weaponization of the justice system, and as a blow to the rule of law.
But those aren't the only problems with the deal: it's also unconstitutional. The President, and the executive-branch officers who assist him, have a duty to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," U.S. Const. art. II, § 3, and to respect the separation of powers. Nonenforcement trades like this one—where the executive branch promises not to enforce the law against someone who has promised to help achieve unrelated goals—violate that duty.
