Over the past weekend, the legal community and government oversight advocates converged on Capitol Hill to celebrate U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) prosecutor Ed Sullivan, a veteran of the Public Integrity Section, after his courageous legal stance during last February’s explosive events now termed the “Thursday Night Massacre.”
On February 13, 2025, Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove ordered DOJ attorneys to dismiss federal corruption charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams—statements perceived by many as driven by politics, not justice. The term “Thursday Night Massacre” echoes the infamous 1973 “Saturday Night Massacre” under President Richard Nixon, when top Justice officials resigned rather than comply with orders that violated legal principles.
Six senior DOJ officials—including interim Manhattan U.S. Attorney Danielle Sassoon and the acting heads of the Criminal and Public Integrity divisions—resigned in protest before the order was complied with. Hagan Scotten, Adams’ lead prosecutor, rejected the directive, stating forcefully, “It was never going to be me,” in reference to signing off on the dismissal of charges.
Amid the turmoil, Sullivan stepped forward to file the only motion to dismiss Mayor Adams’ charges—an act he characterized not as capitulation but as a measure to shield his colleagues from political retaliation. Ethical experts, including Georgetown law professor Steve Vladeck, described Sullivan’s actions as an embodiment of prosecutorial integrity, likening the episode to Watergate-era resistance but noting it was “on steroids.”
On July 21, 2025, Sullivan was awarded the American Bar Association’s Ethics in Government Award at a Capitol reception attended by lawmakers, legal scholars, and career DOJ attorneys. In his remarks, he dedicated the honor to his former Public Integrity colleagues and emphasized that “the oath to uphold the Constitution isn’t a slogan—it’s an unwavering standard.” His stance has sparked renewed debate about insulating prosecutors from political influence.
Sullivan’s decision has brought renewed focus to prosecutorial independence. The resignations of DOJ leadership were widely seen as a defense of the principle that justice must remain free from political interference. The episode also revived historical comparisons to previous crises in DOJ independence, including the 2006 dismissals of U.S. attorneys under the George W. Bush administration and the Saturday Night Massacre itself.
Many legal analysts argue that Sullivan’s action reinforced the necessity for clearer protections for DOJ attorneys who face ethically questionable directives. Advocates have renewed calls for robust whistleblower protections and independent oversight mechanisms to ensure prosecutorial decisions are governed by legal standards, not political expediency.
Since the dismissal, the Adams case was closed “with prejudice,” meaning it cannot be refiled. Nonetheless, investigators have continued to examine related allegations involving gifts from foreign nationals, misuse of public funds, and violations of campaign finance laws. Mayor Adams also faces several civil suits, including a high-profile RICO claim filed by former NYPD Commissioner Tom Donlon alleging systemic corruption within City Hall.
The tribute to Sullivan serves not merely as a personal commendation but as a broader affirmation of the rule of law. In the wake of a politically volatile episode that shook the foundations of the DOJ, his recognition underscores the enduring importance of ethical resolve among government attorneys. Legal observers predict this case will influence judicial policy discussions and congressional oversight in the run-up to the 2025 presidential election, especially concerning DOJ independence.
