Who’s getting involved in NYC Mayor Adams’ criminal case? Turns out, a lot of people.

The criminal case against Mayor Eric Adams has become a political lightning rod, with colorful characters across the philosophical spectrum weighing in.

Former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn – perhaps most famous for pleading guilty to lying to the FBI in 2017 — submitted an amicus brief imploring the judge to immediately dismiss the case against Adams. Retired Judge Shira Scheindlin, known for overseeing a civil case that upended the NYPD’s stop-and-frisk protocols, on the other hand, wrote to ask the judge to do more digging before he makes a decision. More than a dozen other judges, lawyers and legal ethicists have also added their two cents.

A grand jury indicted Adams last September on charges that he traded his political power for bribes, including more than $100,000 worth of travel upgrades on Turkish Airlines. He pleaded not guilty and was supposed to stand trial in April. But last month, the Department of Justice pressured the New York City prosecutor overseeing the case to dismiss the charges. The prosecutor resigned in protest, and prosecutors in Washington, D.C. filed their own motion to toss the case days later.

U.S. District Court Judge Dale Ho will soon decide whether to accept the dismissal request, which has become mired in controversy and allegations that the DOJ is using it to wield power over Adams. Because both Adams and federal prosecutors are now asking Ho to dismiss the case, Ho has assigned an outside attorney to argue against dropping the charges, for an alternate perspective.

Political scientist Susan Kang said in an email that the flurry of filings signals that the case has become “politicized.”

“A lot of basic principles of the law have become politically contested,” said Kang, an associate professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice.

Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond who specializes in the federal judiciary, said it’s common for groups with different perspectives to file briefs in controversial cases.

“I think it’s healthy in a pluralistic democracy to hear all sides of this compelling case,” he said.

Here are some of the people who are weighing in:

Retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn

You might remember Michael Flynn from his military career, or from his stint advising President Donald Trump during the 2016 campaign and the early days of Trump’s first administration. You might also remember his hot and cold relationship with Russia and his ties to two men accused of making false statements about a Turkish cleric to try to get him sent back to Turkey.

In 2017, Flynn pleaded guilty to charges that he lied to the FBI. But then the DOJ asked a judge to dismiss the charges — like in Adams’ case. Trump pardoned him before the judge had a chance to decide whether to toss the case, according to news reports from the time.

Flynn filed a brief along with the Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund and America’s Future, a group that describes itself as the “premier nationwide network of liberty-minded young leaders.” In their papers, Flynn and the conservative groups argue that Ho, who is presiding over Adams’ case, has no real authority to go against the DOJ's request to drop the charges.

“Here, there is nothing for the Court to do but dismiss the case,” they write.

Former federal jurists

More than a dozen retired federal judges told Ho in a legal brief that they think Adams and DOJ officials are engaging in a quid pro quo. They wrote that prosecutors seem to be agreeing to dismiss the mayor’s charges in exchange for his help with the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown. And they said they’re worried about the DOJ’s request to leave open the possibility of reviving the case in the future, because it could leave the mayor feeling pressured to stay in the president’s good graces.

“This quid pro quo has nothing to do with the administration of justice; its goal is to advance the administration’s political priorities,” the former judges wrote.

Adams, his attorneys and acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove have denied any wrongdoing.

The former jurists were appointed by both Democratic and Republican presidents, and they hail from places as close as New York and as far away as California. One of the former judges is Shira Scheindlin, who presided over a landmark settlement to overhaul how the NYPD uses stop and frisk.

Pro-democracy lawyers and legal ethicists

These groups describe themselves in court papers as “nonprofit, nonpartisan” pro-democracy lawyers and experts in legal ethics. They argue the judge should investigate whether Bove has violated his ethical duties, including by pressuring prosecutors to dismiss Adams’ case and retaliating against those who didn’t oblige. If the prosecutors who ultimately signed the motion to dismiss the case were pressured to do so, they wrote, “this would irrevocably taint the motion.”

The lawyers and ethicists also said Ho should hold a hearing to determine whether Bove and Adams’ lawyers engaged in any wrongdoing.

“Mr. Bove is asking the court simply to take his word for it that there is nothing amiss, when there are ample grounds for questioning that assertion,” they wrote.

The Catholic University of America

The Catholic University of America’s Separation of Powers Clinic used to operate out of the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University, named for the conservative late jurist.

Trent McCotter, director of the clinic, is a member of the Federalist Society, a conservative legal group. He has also represented clients in various politically charged cases, including against climate regulations and the federal employee vaccine mandate, according to a professional bio.

Like Flynn, McCotter wrote in a brief that Ho should promptly dismiss Adams’ charges, because Adams has agreed to the terms.

“That should end the matter,” McCotter wrote, adding: “Anything further risks serious harm for the separation of powers.”