New York City Mayor Eric Adams’ criminal case should be dismissed with prejudice, according to a lawyer appointed by the judge overseeing the case, boosting the mayor’s bid to have his federal charges tossed out for good.

Paul Clement, a U.S. solicitor general under President George W. Bush, wrote in a brief filed Friday that if Adams’ case is dismissed without prejudice — which leaves open the possibility that the charges could be brought again — “the prospect of reindictment could create the appearance, if not the reality, that the actions of a public official are being driven by concerns about staying in the good graces of the federal executive, rather than the best interests of his constituents.”

“Dismissal with prejudice avoids those concerns and promotes another important separation-of-powers virtue — namely, accountability,” he wrote.

Clement was appointed last month by Manhattan federal Judge Dale Ho to offer independent counsel on the Justice Department’s motion to set aside Adams’ case. Ho does not have to heed Clement’s recommendation, but it will likely influence his decision in the case.

In his recommendation, Clement argued against the court weighing in on whether to dismiss the motion, writing instead that the court’s role should focus on deciding “how — not whether — a prosecution should be dismissed.”

“Even if this Court were to deny the government’s motion, it could not constitutionally force the executive to proceed, which would likely necessitate a dismissal with prejudice on speedy-trial grounds,” he wrote.

The DOJ’s effort to get Adams’ case dismissed without prejudice has led to accusations that the Trump administration could use the charges as political leverage over Adams, a Democrat who has been more than willing to cooperate with the president’s anti-immigration crackdown. The department’s approach to the case has prompted a raft of resignations from top federal prosecutors and a leak of internal DOJ correspondence, in which one of those prosecutors accused Adams’ attorney of pushing for “what amounted to a quid pro quo” between the administration and the mayor in exchange for dismissal.

Adams’ attorneys have denied any such arrangement. After initially supporting the dismissal without prejudice, his team then asked Ho to dismiss the case with prejudice, arguing that the publication of the department’s communications violated the mayor’s “fundamental constitutional rights and ability to receive a fair trial.”

Clement’s recommendation is a tentative win for Adams, who is up for re-election this year and continues to grapple with huge political fallout from the scandal. In response to Clement’s argument in favor of dismissing the charges permanently, Fabian Levy, the mayor’s spokesperson, wrote on X: “To quote @NYCMayor, ‘Yeah, duh.’”