The Eric Adams dismissal saga epitomizes much of the second Trump administration. For one thing, it’s a prime example of the Justice Department — led by Donald Trump’s personal lawyers from his criminal and impeachment cases — wielding the awesome power of the federal government for the president’s political ends.

But in the wake of Wednesday’s permanent dismissal of the corruption case against the New York City mayor, another thing that shouldn’t get lost in this sordid chapter is that it’s a testament to judicial independence in Trump 2.0.

Indeed, the case’s ignoble ending could’ve been much worse.

Recall that U.S. District Judge Dale Ho was faced with a brazen request from the Justice Department to dismiss the corruption charges only temporarily, and Adams agreed with that arrangement. Had Ho immediately rubber-stamped it, that would’ve left open the possibility that the Republican administration would later revive the charges, giving Trump political leverage over the Democratic mayor on matters of immigration enforcement and who knows what else.

The parties’ strained insistence that it wasn’t a quid pro quo only served to emphasize that it was.

To be sure, the Biden-appointed judge would’ve been within his rights to sign off on the transparently corrupt agreement. After all, it’s what both sides said they wanted at an unusual Feb. 19 hearing in Manhattan.

But in a masterstroke, the judge on Feb. 21 appointed a third party to present additional arguments on the matter, given the lack of adversarial testing that we typically see in the American legal system. The real genius of the appointment was in whom Ho tasked with the historic assignment: Paul Clement, not only one of the top lawyers out there but a bona fide conservative, to boot. Whatever the Democratic appointee would ultimately decide, it wouldn’t be a partisan hatchet job.

Adams added another wrinkle himself Feb. 26 when he moved for a dismissal with prejudice. He claimed prosecutorial misconduct and the tainting of his presumption of innocence, due to negative information about him emerging in letters from prosecutors who resigned rather than move to dismiss his case without prejudice as the Trump DOJ instructed.

Clement’s March 7 brief backed the conclusion of a dismissal with prejudice. Dismissing the case without prejudice, Clement wrote, “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.”

Ho cited that language in his ruling Wednesday dismissing the case with prejudice, taking the DOJ to task in a lengthy opinion. He summarized the government’s position as wanting to ditch the case “because (1) it is tainted with impropriety; (2) it is detrimental to national security and immigration enforcement; and (3) it was a weak case to begin with — but the Court should also allow DOJ to bring the prosecution back at any time, for essentially any reason.”

The judge wrote that he “cannot and will not authorize such a result,” adding that the DOJ’s stated reasons for seeking dismissal, “if taken at face value, are inconsistent with a decision to leave the charges in the Indictment hanging like the proverbial Sword of Damocles over the Mayor.”

Had the judge given the Trump DOJ exactly what it wanted, then that proverbial sword would’ve been left hanging over both the defendant and the city he’s tasked with serving. It would’ve also driven a sword through the justice system more than the Justice Department already has. But while the judge recognized that he can’t force the government to prosecute anyone, he declined to do its dirty work.

Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration’s legal cases.