"The same basic separation-of-powers principles that counsel against a court maintaining a prosecution over the executive's objection support dismissal with prejudice here."

"The executive's unilateral option for ending a prosecution—namely, a pardon—more closely resembles a dismissal with prejudice. And the executive's undoubted power to decline to initiate a prosecution leaves a citizen's liberty untouched. But a dismissal without prejudice creates a palpable sense that the prosecution outlined in the indictment and approved by a grand jury could be renewed, a prospect that hangs like the proverbial Sword of Damocles over the accused. Such an ongoing prospect of re-indictment is particularly problematic when it comes to the sensitive task of prosecuting public officials. There is an inherent risk that once an indictment has been procured, the prospect of re-indictment could create the appearance, if not the reality, that the actions of a public official are being driven by concerns about staying in the good graces of the federal executive, rather than the best interests of his constituents.... Dismissal with prejudice avoids those concerns and promotes another important separation-of-powers virtue— namely, accountability."

So writes Paul D. Clement, responding — at the request of the judge — to the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss charges against Eric Adams.

Here's the full text of Clement's response.

Here's the NYT article about it: "Lawyer Appointed in Adams Case Says Charges Should Be Dropped/Paul D. Clement also said a judge should not allow the Trump administration to use the court’s authority to compel Mr. Adams’s support in the White House’s mass deportation efforts."