N.Y. Court Holds Mayor Adams Likely Improperly "Negotiated Away Sanctuary City Protections for a Dismissal of His Ongoing Criminal Prosecution"
From New York trial court judge Mary Rosado's opinion Thursday in Council of City of N.Y. v. Adams (see also N.Y. Times [Luis Ferré-Sadurní], Judge Blocks ICE Plan to Open Rikers Office Indefinitely):
This case, at its essence, seeks to maintain the rule of law. Plaintiff-Petitioner seeks to nullify an Executive Order issued allegedly because Mayor Adams negotiated away sanctuary city protections for a dismissal of his ongoing criminal prosecution. On January 31, 2025, Mayor Adams met with President Donald J. Trump's Deputy Attorney General, Emil Bove ("Mr. Bove"), to discuss Mayor Adams' ongoing criminal prosecution's impact on his ability to "work[] with the federal government on important issues of immigration enforcement" Danielle R. Sassoon, Esq., Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, attended the January 31, 2025 meeting, and said "Adams'[] attorneys repeatedly urged what amounted to a quid pro quo, indicating that Adams would be in a position to assist with [immigration] enforcement priorities only if the indictment were dismissed."
On February 3, 2025, Mayor Adams' criminal defense attorney, Alex Spiro, wrote to Mr. Bove that Mayor Adams' criminal prosecution will "become increasingly problematic as the Trump administration seeks to aggressively enforce immigration laws and remove undocumented immigrants …. [T]he federal government cannot possibly rely on Mayor Adams to be a fully effective partner in all situations in ongoing public-safety missions while he is under federal indictment …." Mr. Spiro further wrote that Mayor Adams' "abilities to exercise his powers have also been complicated by his indictment" including his powers to "prevent[] the Office of the Corporation Counsel from litigating challenges to immigration enforcement, prevent[] appointed city employees from taking public stances against enforcement efforts, [and to] re-open[] the ICE office on Rikers Island …." On February 10, 2025, Mr. Bove directed federal prosecutors to dismiss without prejudice the pending criminal charges against Mayor Adams.
On February 13, 2025, just after meeting President Donald J. Trump's "Border Czar," Thomas Homan ("Mr. Homan"), Mayor Adams announced he would issue an executive order allowing federal immigration authorities on Rikers Island. One day later, on February 14, 2025, Mr. Homan appeared alongside Mayor Adams on Fox & Friends, where he stated if Mayor Adams did not deliver "I'll be back in New York City, and we won't be sitting on the couch. I'll be in his office, up his b ___, saying, 'Where the hell is the agreement we came to?'" That same day, the Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss all pending criminal charges against Mayor Adams.
While the motion to dismiss was pending, numerous deputy mayors resigned from Mayor Adams' administration. On March 20, 2025, First Deputy Mayor Mastro was appointed by Mayor Adams. On March 24, 2025, Mayor Adams issued Executive Order No. 49. This order provides First Deputy Mayor Mastro shall "[r]eport directly to the Mayor." It also delegated to First Deputy Mayor Mastro the authority to "[p]erform any function, power or duty of the Mayor in negotiating, executing and delivering any and all agreements, instruments and any other documents necessary or desirable to effectuate any of the matters" related to public safety.
On April 2, 2025, United District Judge Dale Ho dismissed the criminal charges with prejudice, writing "[e]verything here smacks of a bargain: dismissal of the [i]ndictment in exchange for immigration policy concessions." Judge Ho further wrote the suggestion "that public officials may receive special dispensation if they are compliant with the incumbent administration's policy priorities … is fundamentally incompatible with the basic promise of equal justice under law." Ultimately, Judge Ho found that he "cannot force the Department of Justice to prosecute a defendant" and did not have the authority "to appoint an independent prosecutor" which precluded him from denying the Department of Justice's motion to dismiss. Six days later, on April 8, 2025, First Deputy Mayor Mastro issued Executive Order No. 50, which authorized the Department of Correction to enter a Memorandum of Understanding with federal law enforcement agencies allowing them to maintain office space on Department of Correction property, specifically Rikers Island.
The court concluded that Mayor Adams' actions likely violated N.Y. conflict of interest law:
The Court finds there has been a requisite showing of a likelihood of success on the merits. New York City Charter § 2604(b)(3) provides that "[n]o public servant shall use or attempt to use his or her position as a public servant to obtain any … privilege or other private or personal advantage, direct or indirect, for the public servant or any person or firm associated with the public servant." Pursuant to the Court of Appeals, "[pjublic policy forbids the sustaining of a municipal action [by] a member of the municipal governing body … which directly or immediately affects him individually" and in such a case the government action must be declared null and void. The test is "not whether there is a conflict, but whether there might be." …
Plaintiff-Petitioner has shown a likelihood of success in demonstrating, at a minimum, the appearance of a quid pro quo whereby Mayor Adams publicly agreed to bring Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") back to Rikers Island in exchange for dismissal of his criminal charges. This showing is grounded in (1) Mayor Adams' public statements; (2) Mayor Adams' criminal defense attorney's written overtures to the Department of Justice; (3) the temporal proximity between these overtures and Mr. Bove's directive to dismiss the criminal charges against Mayor Adams; (4) statements from former Acting United States Attorney Danielle R. Sassoon and Assistant United States Attorney Hagan Scotten; (5) Mr. Homan's statement that he will "be in [Mayor Adams'] office, up his b ___, saying, 'Where the hell is the agreement we came to?'" and (6) the written findings by United States District Judge Dale Ho.
Although Defendants-Respondents deny any quid pro quo in conclusory fashion, this is insufficient, and almost expected. As wisely stated by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the quid pro quo need not be stated in express terms "for otherwise the law's effect could be frustrated by knowing winks and nods. The inducement from the official is [violative] if it is express or if it is implied from his words and actions …." Based on the record, Plaintiff-Petitioner has made a sufficient showing of an implied, if not an express quid pro quo based on Mayor Adams, Mr. Spiro, Mr. Bove, and Mr. Homan's words and actions.
The issue, then, is whether Mayor Adams successfully recused himself from the execution of Executive Order No. 50, and whether the delegation to First Deputy Mayor Mastro cleansed the conflict and/or appearance of any conflict…. [Under New York precedents,] simply delegating oversight and management of a process to the conflicted official's underling is not enough to cleanse a conflict under New York City Charter § 2604(b)(3). This is especially the case where First Deputy Mayor Mastro is not independent, but was personally appointed by Mayor Adams, and pursuant to Executive Order No. 49, directly reports to Mayor Adams.
To be clear, it is undisputed that Mayor Adams admitted he did not recuse himself. Juliet Papa, a reporter with 1010 WINS asked Mayor Adams "why he recused himself" to which Mayor Adams responded "I did not recuse myself. People play around with terminologies. I delegated. I'm the mayor." However, assuming, arguendo, that Mayor Adams did recuse himself, [New York law] instructs that his limited and belated recusal is insufficient. On February 10, 2025, Mr. Bove directed the criminal charges against Mayor Adams be dropped, and just three days later, on February 13, 2025, Mayor Adams, in a joint statement with Mr. Homan, stated on national television his intention to bring ICE back to Rikers. A public official with the appearance of a conflict of interest cannot cleanse the conflict by recusing himself after making it publicly known his desired outcome and delegating to his deputy. Nor have Defendants-Respondents stated that they sought an advisory opinion from the Conflicts of Interest Board prior to engaging in their delegation-execution spree, nor have they produced any advisory opinion in opposition to the application.
The Defendants-Respondents' hyperbolic argument that if Mayor Adams cannot delegate to First Deputy Mayor Mastro, then there is nobody he can delegate to, is without merit. First Deputy Mayor Mastro, although an accomplished and highly educated attorney, is not independent of Mayor Adams and therefore cannot be considered impartial and free from Mayor Adams' conflicts. First Deputy Mayor Mastro reports directly to Mayor Adams, is appointed by Mayor Adams, and can be fired by Mayor Adams. He is Mayor Adams' agent. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff-Petitioner has shown a likelihood of success in obtaining a declaration that Executive Order No. 50 is null and void.
The Court finds that Plaintiff-Petitioner has demonstrated imminent and irreparable harm for purposes of obtaining a preliminary injunction. The harm to intangible assets such as damage to reputation, loss of goodwill, and brand tarnishment are routinely found sufficient to grant injunctive relief. New York City, which thrives as a global hub due in large part to its reputation as being a welcoming home for immigrant communities from around the world, risks having this goodwill and invaluable reputation irreparably damaged as a result of an Executive Order borne out of Mayor Adams' alleged conflict of interest. New York City, through legislation and decades of policy, has established a reputation as a "Sanctuary City." This reputation, and the goodwill built from decades of policy decisions, and which have provided New Yorkers with numerous intangible cultural and economic benefits, risks being irrevocably tarnished. The harm to New York City's reputation as a Sanctuary City, and the goodwill with numerous communities that flows from that reputation, is best preserved through a preliminary injunction prohibiting Defendants-Respondents from acting on Executive Order No. 50.
Moreover, the imminent threat of the loss of public trust in government institutions serves as a basis for injunctive relief. The Court of Appeals has held that "the public's trust in government" is integral to "our constitutional design." "Retaining public trust is essential for our government to function effectively and secure the freedom of its citizens, and thus is a paramount State interest." "[D]emocracy cannot thrive and institutions cannot function where the public perceives that government actors use their power to serve their personal interests rather than those of their constituents." …
Plaintiff Petitioner and the amici curiae have presented evidence of the loss of trust and ongoing harms being faced by immigrant New Yorkers and New York government organs. For example, victims of domestic violence are afraid to call the police for fear of incarceration and deportation. Undocumented New Yorkers fear cooperation with local law enforcement, as any interaction could lead to being taken into ICE custody. Children who have undocumented parents miss school. Undocumented individuals who are sick forego medical treatment. But individuals who wish to live here legally and appear for Court dates are apparently being taken into custody. The loss of trust from communities at large in government institutions and local law enforcement, demonstrated by Plaintiff-Petitioner and the amici curiae, has and will continue to have grave and irreparable consequences for New York City.
The Court is also cognizant of threat of irreparable harm in a more concrete sense—that is the threat to detained New York State and City residents and their dignity. There is ample evidence that there is already a serious, imminent and ongoing risk that immigrant New Yorkers, and even foreign tourists to New York City, are being wrongfully detained. There are documented reports of individuals being deported to stranger third-countries, and New York City residents are taken into custody for expressing political views contrary to the federal government's agenda. Residents who are here seeking asylum are being deported to countries they claim to have previously faced persecution for their sexuality, politics, or religion. And this concrete harm flows to the Plaintiff-Petitioner….
This injunction does not prohibit New York City from cooperating with the federal government in deportation proceedings for undocumented individuals who are covered by judicial warrants and orders signed by federal or immigration judges….
ORDERED that Defendants-Respondents, their agents, and all other New York City government officials, officers, personnel and agencies are prohibited from taking any steps towards negotiating, signing, or implementing any Memoranda of Understanding with the federal government regarding federal law enforcement presence on Department of Correction property until the final resolution of this proceeding ….