2025 U.S. Department of Justice resignations

The 2025 U.S. Department of Justice resignations, also known as the "Thursday Night Massacre" or the "Valentine's Day Seven", refer to the resignations of seven prosecutors of the U.S. Department of Justice in February 2025 in response to orders from acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove to dismiss federal criminal corruption charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams.

[4] On September 26, the case was unsealed, revealing the five charges: bribery, conspiracy, fraud, and two counts of soliciting illegal foreign campaign donations.

[6] Allegedly, in order to cover up his misconduct, Adams created and instructed others to make false paper trails indicating that he actually paid for these trips in full.

"[11] In January 2025, President Donald Trump appointed Danielle Sassoon as Acting U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, pending the Senate confirmation of Jay Clayton.

"[14] On February 12, 2025, Sassoon, who is a registered Republican and a "member of a deeply conservative Federalist Society", sent a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi objecting to dropping the charges for explicitly political reasons, and requesting a meeting.

"[20] In that letter Sassoon stated "The reasons advanced by Mr. Bove for dismissing the indictment are not ones I can in good faith defend as in the public interest and as consistent with the principles of impartiality and fairness that guide my decision-making.

"[21] Sassoon argues that "Mr. Bove proposes dismissing the charges against Adams in return for his assistance in enforcing the federal immigration laws, analogizing to the prisoner exchange in which the United States freed notorious Russian arms dealer Victor Bout in return for an American prisoner in Russia" and that "[s]uch an exchange with Adams violates commonsense beliefs in the equal administration of justice, the Justice Manual, and the Rules of Professional Conduct.

"[13] Sassoon concluded her letter with her position that “In the event you are unwilling to meet or to reconsider the directive in light of the problems raised by Mr. Bove’s memo, I am prepared to offer my resignation.” Rather than arranging a meeting with the Attorney General to address Sassoon’s concerns, Bove preemptively accepted her resignation the following day, and stated that her conduct would be investigated by the Office of the Attorney General, pursuant to Executive Order 14147.

[24] Bove also accused Sassoon of violating her duty: "In no valid sense do you uphold the Constitution by disobeying direct orders implementing the policy of a duly elected President.

[13] Scotten disputed the two arguments that Bove gave for the dismissal stating that the "the first justification...that Damian Williams's role in the case somehow tainted a valid indictment...is so weak as to be transparently pretextual" and that the "second justification is worse" in that "[n]o system of ordered liberty can allow the Government to use the carrot of dismissing charges, or the stick of threatening to bring them again, to induce an elected official to support its policy objectives.

[26][21] In explaining his resignation in an letter, Scotten wrote "any assistant U.S. attorney would know that our laws and traditions do not allow using the prosecutorial power to influence other citizens, much less elected officials, in this way.

"[26][21] He added: "If no lawyer within earshot of the President is willing to give him that advice, then I expect you will eventually find someone who is enough of a fool, or enough of a coward, to file your motion.

[28] On February 13, 2025, five officials would resign from the Department of Justice (DOJ) Criminal Division rather than carry out the administration's order to dismiss the case.

"[30][13] According to former U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade posting on X: "DOJ leadership [put] all Public Integrity Section lawyers into a room with 1 hour to decide who will dismiss Adams indictment or else all will be fired... Sending them strength to stand by their oath, which is to support the Constitution, not the president's political agenda.

[30][13][28] After 30 minutes of discussion, Ed Sullivan volunteered to sign the document because he believed this would "protect the other lawyers" and "in some ways, he did not have as much to lose" having already had a more "tarnished" reputation after being previously investigated relating to "the prosecution of Senator Ted Stevens, Republican of Alaska.

'"[36][22] Homan later rejected accusations that this discussion illustrated a quid pro quo regarding the dismissal of charges against Adams: "I really don't think it had anything to do with whatever's going on in the Justice Department... We never talked about that.

[19] On February 17, it was reported that four (Maria Torres-Springer, Anne Williams-Isom, Meera Joshi, Chauncey Parker) of the eight deputy mayors of New York City under Adams would be resigning.

"[41] However, he also stated in his order that he was appointing outside lawyer to present independent arguments on the motion to dismiss because "there has been no adversarial testing of the government’s position.

"[41] Judge Ho appointed Paul D. Clement, a respected conservative jurist, as amicus curiae to answer various questions regarding the appropriateness of dismissing the charges under the current circumstances.

"[42] Reuters stated that this case "illustrated the tensions between the traditional U.S. conservative Republican legal movement and Trump's desire to exert far more direct control of the federal government, challenging standards of prosecutorial independence that have stood for a half century.

In short, the extension of the logic of plea-bargain conditions into the realm of compliant policy actions by public officials is very much the politicization of criminal justice.

[43]Journalists and legal scholars have compared the series of resignations to the 1973 Saturday Night Massacre, when president Richard Nixon ordered DOJ executives to fire Archibald Cox, the special prosecutor heading the Watergate investigation.

The letter also lauded the prosecutors for having "responded to ethical challenges of a type no public servant should ever be forced to confront with principle and conviction".