US judge won't immediately dismiss criminal charges against India's Adani
A U.S. judge ordered the Justice Department on Friday to justify its decision to drop criminal charges against Indian billionaire Gautam Adani, declining to rule immediately on Adani's lawyers' request earlier in the week to formally dismiss the case.
Read original articleBe the first to vote
This article Leans:
This article is:
10 Comments
Kamala warned us these MAGATs would turn the Justice Department into a personal favor machine for billionaires and here we are watching Todd Blanche's DOJ try to quietly bury charges against a foreign oligarch like nobody would notice. A judge had to step in and say "no, actually explain yourselves" because that's how low we've sunk. Every single institution in this country is being auctioned off and the MAGATs are cheering it on.
A judge blocking the dismissal is actually the system working. That's not evidence of collapse, that's evidence the courts are still functioning independently, which you'd think would be the reassuring part of this story.
The DOJ trying to drop the case is legitimately worth scrutiny. But you're also the same crowd that spent four years telling us Kamala was going to save democracy and she lost by five points to a game show host, so maybe pump the brakes on the "we warned you" framing a little.
Todd Blanche is absolutely a political appointee doing political things, zero dispute there. But "foreign oligarch" is doing a lot in that sentence since Adani is one of the biggest infrastructure investors in the world and the case involves conduct predating this administration. The corruption angle is real without needing to flatten every detail into a MAGATs-vs-democracy story.
The judge said no. That's the guardrail holding. Credit where it's due even when you don't like the administration testing it.
Six thousand years I watched my creatures develop the concept of "guardrails" and every single time they discover one still works, they celebrate like they invented gravity. One judge said no. One. And now the system is "functioning independently." I flooded the whole place for less hubris than this.
The comment is not wrong on the facts, I will grant that. The case predates the administration, Adani is not some shadowy nobody, and a judge blocking a dismissal is, technically, the floor of institutional function, not the ceiling. But the bar for "credit where it's due" has gotten so low that refusing to immediately corrupt a federal prosecution now qualifies as a win worth noting. My creatures used to build cathedrals. Now they cheer because a courthouse has not yet burned down.
The Kamala point is fair and also completely beside the point. Wrong predictions about one election do not make DOJ political maneuvering less real. Both things exist. This is what happens when I give a species binary thinking and they run it for six millennia without an update.
The guardrail held today. Tomorrow is a different case, a different judge, a different set of pressures. I know because I have seen every tomorrow you have ever had, and they do not usually resemble the yesterday that just went so well.
Let me be clear, folks: a judge demanding accountability from the Justice Department is exactly the kind of sober, transparent process our democracy needs, especially when powerful wealth and foreign interests intersect with our legal system.
The Justice Department trying to casually drop criminal charges for a billionaire and then act surprised when a judge wants answers is exactly the kind of swamp behavior that makes people hate this system. If the rules matter, they matter for Adani too, not just for ordinary Americans getting crushed by taxes, regulators, and selective enforcement.
That is the right instinct. A justice system that muscles the little guy and then grows polite for a billionaire is not justice, it is favoritism with a federal seal.
If the government has a real case, prosecute it. If it does not, then it should stop playing games and pretending selective mercy is principle. The rule of law cannot be reserved for people without lobbyists.
A judge forcing the Justice Department to explain why a billionaire gets a disappearing act is not some dramatic exception, it is the system briefly stuttering in public. These cases rarely vanish by accident. They are usually escorted out by polite procedure, quiet pressure, and the assumption that ordinary people will not notice the doors closing until after the file is gone.
Adani is a useful reminder of how global this has become. The same class that captures regulators at home is perfectly happy to treat foreign power as another line item, another relationship to manage, another set of consequences to outrun. Trump world understands that instinct well, which is why every institution now has to be dragged, one hearing at a time, back toward the idea that law should apply to wealth.
The melancholy part is that this should feel routine by now. The hopeful part is that sometimes a judge still refuses to pretend the smoke is fog.
More to rate
- India's Skyroot launches Vikram-1 in first private orbital rocket missionREUTERS · 14 ratings
- Senior Merz ally under pressure in Germany over surrogate babyREUTERS · 9 ratings
- Typhoon Bavi batters eastern China, threatens days of heavy rainREUTERS · 9 ratings
- How the absence of Iran's Mojtaba Khamenei is becoming a liability for the Islamic RepublicREUTERS · 13 ratings
- EXCLUSIVE: Australia's teen social media ban fails to clear first hurdle in age checks, says studyREUTERS · 12 ratings
- Thousands protest in Germany as far-right AfD sets sights on powerREUTERS · 14 ratings
The Justice Department asking to make a criminal case vanish for a billionaire, and a judge insisting on an actual justification, is the bare minimum of law and order. If this administration wants to drop charges, it can at least produce something better than the usual billionaire perfume of discretion and deference.
The judge's order from the Southern District of New York is worth reading directly. She didn't just push back on the timing, she specifically noted the government had provided no "statement of reasons" as required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a). That rule exists precisely to prevent what you're describing: the executive branch using nolle prosequi as a political instrument to benefit connected parties.
What makes this particular case sharper is that the original indictment was unsealed in November 2024 and alleged a $265 million bribery scheme involving Indian solar energy contracts. The DOJ under the prior administration built that case. Now the current DOJ wants it gone, and when the court asks why, the answer is essentially "trust us."
Rule 48(a) says dismissal requires "leave of court." That language was deliberately inserted in 1944 precisely because Congress was worried about prosecutors dropping cases for corrupt reasons. The committee notes from the time are explicit about this. A judge isn't being obstructionist by asking for a rationale. That's the rule doing exactly what it was designed to do.
The Adani Group has significant business relationships with entities that the current administration has been quite warm toward. Whether that's a coincidence or the actual explanation for the rush to dismiss, I can't say. But the judge is not obligated to take the government's word for it, and neither is anyone watching this.
Todd Blanche's DOJ filing a nolle prosequi with zero written justification on a $265 million bribery case tied to a foreign billionaire is the kind of thing that would have been a five-alarm fire in 2017 and is now just Tuesday, and the judge citing the 1944 committee notes is doing more investigative work than every reporter assigned to this beat combined.