US legal experts emphasize that it would be highly unprecedented for a federal court to reject the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) request to permanently drop the criminal indictment against Indian billionaire Gautam Adani and seven others.
The consensus follows a forceful, 10-page written submission filed by the DOJ on July 4, 2026. The filing was a direct response to US District Judge Nicholas Garaufis, who had previously characterized the government’s initial dismissal motion as “terse, bland, and conclusory” and demanded a detailed legal rationale.
Constitutional Separation of Powers
While Judge Garaufis’s push for a fuller explanation is a standard procedural measure under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a), legal analysts clarify that the judiciary has virtually no authority to force a prosecution.
-
Executive Discretion: The conduct of criminal prosecutions is constitutionally designated as an executive branch function. Historically, US federal courts grant immense deference to the DOJ’s charging and dismissal decisions.
-
Lack of Modern Precedent: “The court might try to extend it further, but it really doesn’t have the authority to force the Department of Justice to prosecute a case that the department does not want to prosecute,” stated Adam Goldberg, Corporate Investigations Partner at Pillsbury.
-
Establishing a Record: Legal experts note that the judge’s request is aimed at building a clean judicial record to satisfy the court that the dismissal is being pursued in good faith, rather than signaling an intention to block it.
The DOJ’s Hard-Hitting Rationale
In its formal submission to the New York court, the DOJ went beyond standard legal boilerplate, arguing that the indictment—originally brought in late 2024 under the Biden administration—“should have been dropped a year ago — or never brought in the first place.”
Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General R. Trent McCotter cited several fatal vulnerabilities in the case:
“This is a foreign case.” The DOJ stated that the alleged bribery and fraud conduct was overwhelmingly centered in India, involved foreign nationals, and presented “extraordinary proof problems.”
Furthermore, the DOJ noted that Indian authorities had extensively investigated the underlying allegations and found no actionable misconduct, and that international investors suffered zero financial losses on the securities involved. The filing concluded that forcing the US to act as a “world police” in this instance would cause unnecessary diplomatic friction and waste domestic resources.
Pushing Back Against Judicial Inquisitions
The DOJ’s brief also carried a sharp warning regarding judicial overreach, asserting that forcing prosecutors to publicly lay bare their internal decision-making processes would severely chill future dismissals and compromise privileged executive branch deliberations.
With the DOJ positioning its stance firmly on the legal and jurisdictional merits, prominent legal figures—including Senior Advocate Harish Salve and various US corporate defense attorneys—anticipate that the New York federal court will formally approve the dismissal with prejudice within weeks.
This video provides an expert legal breakdown of the jurisdictional and evidentiary gaps cited by the US Department of Justice in its move to withdraw the bribery indictment.
