Federal Judge Demands DOJ Explain Why It Dropped Bribery Charges Against a Billionaire Who Hired Trump’s Lawyer

U.S. District Judge Nicholas Garaufis of the Eastern District of New York ordered the Justice Department on Friday, June 26, to formally justify its decision to drop federal bribery and securities fraud charges against Indian billionaire Gautam Adani, giving prosecutors until July 13 to submit a written explanation. The DOJ had moved on May 18 to dismiss charges filed in November 2024 alleging that Adani agreed to pay approximately $265 million in bribes to Indian state government officials in exchange for solar energy contracts — without providing any substantive rationale for abandoning the prosecution. Judge Garaufis stated that the government’s dismissal notice did not sufficiently explain the department’s decision [1].

The DOJ’s reversal came after Adani replaced his U.S. defense team with attorneys from Sullivan & Cromwell, led by the firm’s co-chair Robert Giuffra Jr., who also represents President Trump personally in his appeals against a New York criminal conviction and civil fraud judgment. Boris Epshteyn, one of Trump’s closest personal advisers, was also reportedly involved in Adani’s defense strategy behind the scenes, though he did not appear on court filings or attend meetings with prosecutors. Prior to the DOJ’s withdrawal, Adani had pledged to invest $10 billion in U.S. projects [1, 2]. The order compelling a written justification is highly unusual; courts almost never require federal prosecutors to explain a decision not to pursue a case.

Why It Sucks:

Anti-Corruption Watchdogs and Rule-of-Law Advocates

• A judge demanding justification is the system doing exactly what it should. Federal prosecutors have broad discretion, but that discretion is not unlimited when a court has reason to question whether it is being exercised lawfully. The combination of the defendant hiring the president’s personal attorney, a senior presidential adviser quietly assisting the defense, and a $10 billion investment pledge before the charges were dropped creates a factual pattern that demands judicial scrutiny [1, 2].
• The DOJ’s dismissal notice contained zero legal reasoning. Motions to dismiss typically include evidentiary updates, legal arguments, or references to changed circumstances. The May 18 filing reportedly stated only that the department would “no longer pursue” the case — a phrase that, standing alone, provides no basis for the court, the public, or Congress to assess whether the decision was lawfully made or corruptly procured [1].
• This fits a broader pattern of DOJ decisions that track proximity to the administration. The Adani case is not isolated; it is one of a series of Trump-era declinations and reversals that critics argue follow political and financial relationships rather than the merits of the underlying charges. Each dismissal without explanation further erodes public confidence in equal application of federal law [2].

Trump Administration Defenders and DOJ Sovereignty Advocates

• Executive charging discretion is constitutionally grounded and broadly recognized. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that the executive branch — not the judiciary — controls prosecutorial decisions. A judge ordering written justification for a prosecutorial declination is an extraordinary intrusion into Article II authority, regardless of how politically inconvenient the decision appears from outside the department [1].
• The case was legally and diplomatically complicated from the start. The charges were filed in the final weeks of the Biden administration. Federal prosecutors reviewing an inherited case have every right — and arguably a duty — to reassess whether continued prosecution serves the national interest, including foreign policy considerations involving a major strategic ally [2].
• An investment pledge is statecraft, not a quid pro quo. Nations routinely use trade and investment discussions as instruments of diplomacy. Adani’s commitment to invest $10 billion in U.S. projects is consistent with the Trump administration’s broader economic diplomacy goals; treating it as evidence of criminal corruption requires a chain of inference that goes well beyond the established public facts [1, 2].

U.S.-India Foreign Policy Advocates

• India is a critical Indo-Pacific partner the U.S. cannot afford to estrange. The United States and India are Quad partners and India is a central counterweight to Chinese regional influence. Prosecuting one of India’s most prominent industrialists in a U.S. court — on contested jurisdictional grounds — imposed real diplomatic costs that complicated joint defense procurement and intelligence-sharing at a strategically sensitive moment [2].
• The original indictment created significant and documented bilateral strain. When the Biden DOJ charged Adani in November 2024, the Indian government publicly called the charges baseless and politically motivated. The diplomatic fallout interfered with cooperation arrangements at a time when U.S.-India alignment on Indo-Pacific security is more important than at any point in recent memory [2].
• A diplomatic resolution may serve American interests better than a prolonged trial. The alleged bribery involved Indian officials, Indian energy contracts, and conduct primarily occurring in India. American jurisdictional claims under the FCPA were always contested. A $10 billion U.S. investment commitment and a stronger bilateral relationship may represent a better outcome than a years-long, diplomatically costly prosecution with an uncertain verdict [1].

Sources & Citations:

[1] Al Jazeera: US federal judge questions DOJ decision to drop Adani charges
[2] The New Republic: DOJ Dropped Charges Against Indian Billionaire After He Met Trump Jr.