The judge overseeing Mayor Eric Adams’ corruption case on Wednesday scrutinized the controversial motion by the Trump Justice Department to toss the case, a request that many have described as a quid-pro-quo deal to secure Adams’ cooperation with Trump’s immigration enforcement efforts in New York City.

During an 80-minute hearing, Manhattan Federal Judge Dale Ho promised to rule swiftly on the motion. He has some limited discretion to reject it if he finds it was not made in good faith and is not in the public’s interest.

“It’s not in anyone’s interest for this to drag on,” Ho said Wednesday. “But to exercise my discretion properly, I’m not going to shoot from the hip here today,” adding that he would make a decision in writing.

Last week, Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove ordered Acting Manhattan U.S. Attorney Danielle Sassoon to dismiss the case, asserting that while he hadn’t assessed the actual merits of the case, he had decided the indictment and pending trial were harming the mayor’s ability to assist in Trump’s immigration initiative.

Bove decreed that the case be withdrawn “without prejudice,” meaning that it could be reopened down the road, a caveat deemed by critics as leverage the Trump istration would wield to ensure Adams’ compliance with their demands. 

In response, Sassoon resigned rather than carry out the order. At least seven other federal prosecutors followed Sassoon’s lead and resigned as well rather than carry out the highly unusual order.

In a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi, Sassoon noted that the “law does not a dismissal,” adding that she is “confident that Adams has committed the crimes with which he is charged.” 

Sassoon also recounted that during a Jan. 31 meeting, at which she was present, 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.” 

Bove then took the case away from the Southern District of New York and filed the motion himself on Valentine’s Day. Ho then requested both sides to appear before him to explain how the motion had come to be.

Under questioning by the judge, Bove insisted there was no quid pro quo. He also appeared to reverse his prior decree barring “further targeting of Mayor Adams or additional investigative steps.” Asked by Ho whether the dismissal motion prevents further investigation of Adams, Bove responded, “No.”

The judge asked Adams a series of questions to make sure the mayor understood that withdrawal “without prejudice” means he could be re-indicted on the same charges down the line, or come under further investigation.

Adams made clear that he understood, but he added, “I have not committed a crime and I don’t see them bringing it back.”

Ho also zeroed in on a letter Adams’ defense counsel, Alex Spiro, sent to him Tuesday in which the attorney attacked Sassoon’s accusation that the deal was quid pro quo.

In his letter to Ho, Spiro denied Sassoon’s version of events and promised to swear under oath that this interaction did not happen as she described it. In court Wednesday Ho brought up his promise, asking who would swear to it.

“My colleague and I who were at the meeting,” Spiro responded, adding that he would “raise my right hand right now” if the judge wanted. The judge ignored his offer for now.

Ho’s focus on the disputed narrative of that meeting with Bove could indicate he’s interested in requiring an evidentiary hearing on how the motion to dismiss came to be.

A friend of the court brief filed by three ex-U.S. Attorneys Monday evening requested that the judge hold such a hearing and seek sworn testimony from participants. That could include Bove, Spiro, Sassoon and any other lawyers involved in negotiating the deal.

In court Wednesday, Bove objected to the judge even considering the amicus briefs, labeling them “partisan noise” and attacking accusations that describe the arrangement as a quid pro quo.

“You do have a record that’s undisputed that there was no quid pro quo,” Bove said, without referencing Sassoon’s description of the arrangement.

After the session ended, Adams left the court in Lower Manhattan without responding to questions yelled by reporters or responding to a handful of protesters who shouted for him to resign.

Since details of the Southern District’s objections to the dismissal motion have surfaced, more and more elected officials have called on Adams to step down and Gov. Kathy Hochul has revisited the idea of removing him from office.

On Wednesday Hochul declined to answer questions about Adams at an unrelated press conference on President Trump’s attempt to undo congestion pricing. Hochul, who has the power to oust Adams, has been meeting with key New York City leaders this week to decide his fate. 

Additional reporting by Gwynne Hogan.