New York City Mayor Eric Adams has filed a motion to dismiss a bribery charge brought against him by federal prosecutors, signaling an aggressive defense strategy just days after being indicted. Adams, the first sitting New York City mayor in modern history to be indicted, faces accusations of accepting luxury travel perks and funneling illegal foreign donations into his 2021 mayoral campaign.

In his motion, Adams's legal team argued that the Justice Department had overreached, failing to substantiate the bribery allegations. Prosecutors allege that, while serving as Brooklyn Borough President in 2021, Adams pressured the New York City Fire Department to approve the opening of a Turkish consular building in Manhattan despite concerns about its safety. In exchange, the indictment claims Adams accepted free travel and hotel stays from Turkish nationals. Adams has pleaded not guilty to all charges and maintains that the allegations are unfounded.

The motion to dismiss focuses on whether Adams's actions could be classified as an "official act" under federal bribery laws. Adams's attorneys argue that the mayor had no jurisdiction over the fire department or the consular building at the time, making it impossible for his actions to constitute an official act required to support a bribery charge. They further contended that the alleged travel perks were mere gratuities, noting that elected officials often receive preferential treatment, such as better tables at restaurants or free amenities, which do not typically violate federal law.

In recent years, Supreme Court decisions have tightened the requirements for proving bribery, making it essential for prosecutors to show a clear agreement between a public official and the benefactor—something Adams’s legal team claims is missing from the indictment.

These rulings focus on the requirement to show a clear connection between an official action and a benefit accepted by the public official, making it more difficult for prosecutors to prove bribery.

McDonnell v. United States (2016) – In this case, the Supreme Court unanimously vacated the conviction of former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, ruling that setting up meetings, hosting events, or contacting officials, while beneficial to a donor, did not constitute official acts under federal bribery laws. The Court held that an official act must involve a formal exercise of governmental power, not simply routine political courtesies or informal influence.

Kelly v. United States (2020) – Known as the Bridgegate scandal case, the Court overturned the fraud convictions of public officials involved in a politically motivated traffic jam. The ruling reaffirmed that public corruption charges must meet the stringent standard set in McDonnell, emphasizing that public officials must misuse their official powers for a clear quid pro quo arrangement to satisfy bribery and fraud statutes.

These cases are relevant to Adams’s defense because his attorneys argue that his alleged actions—helping open the Turkish consulate without a fire inspection—do not qualify as official acts since he had no formal control over the fire department or building permits. His lawyers claim this situation is analogous to McDonnell, where informal actions like setting up meetings were deemed insufficient for bribery charges.

The McDonnell and Kelly rulings raise the bar for what constitutes a quid pro quo, a key element in bribery cases, which Adams’s team is leveraging in their motion to dismiss the charges.

Adams’s legal defense team, led by attorney Alex Spiro, has expressed eagerness to move to trial quickly as the mayor faces re-election next year. Despite the charges, Adams has rejected calls for his resignation from both Democrats and political opponents.

The indictment also includes allegations of campaign finance violations, but Adams's lawyers have downplayed those, calling them technicalities and commonplace among elected officials, arguing they are not federal crimes. If the motion to dismiss is successful, it could significantly impact the overall case against the mayor.