For anyone hoping a friendlier DOJ can make their old charges disappear, a federal judge just reminded us that vanishing requires his or her permission.

Big development out of Brooklyn federal court.

DOJ tried to drop the remaining bribery and obstruction charges against executives tied to Indian billionaire Gautam Adani.

The judge said no.

Judge Nicholas Garaufis ruled that Deputy AG Trent McCotter’s justification for dismissal didn’t include the actual facts needed to support it, just conclusions.

McCotter argued weak U.S. jurisdictional ties. Garaufis said essentially: show me the facts, not just the argument.

He’d already rejected an earlier diplomatic strain argument too, noting some conduct happened right here in the U.S.

There’s real context here. Reporting suggests DOJ’s posture shifted after Adani’s team hired a lawyer personally connected to the president.

None of that decided the legal question, but it’s exactly why a court might scrutinise DOJ’s reasoning more closely instead of rubber-stamping it.

Here’s why this matters beyond one case: a change in DOJ’s political priorities doesn’t automatically make an indictment disappear.

Courts still have to sign off.

Don’t assume that a friendlier enforcement climate erases charges already on the books.

The Ethics and Compliance Q and A show is produced by One Stone Creative.