This week, New York Judge Mary Rosado issued an opinion in Council of City of N.Y. v. Adams. The court is blocking the city from allowing the federal government to maintain office space at Rikers Island. The reason is that Rosado agreed that Mayor Eric Adams had a conflict of interest and likely bargained away the access as part of a quid pro quo arrangement to get the Justice Department to drop criminal charges against him. The opinion is quite extraordinary and, in my view, fundamentally flawed. The opinion generated more heat than light on the proper handling of a conflict of interest.
The court recounts the testimony of Danielle R. Sassoon, Esq., Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, regarding a January 31, 2025, meeting with President Donald J. Trump’s Deputy Attorney General, Emil Bove, and the Mayor’s criminal defense counsel. She claimed that “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.”
After that meeting, on February 3, 2025, Mayor Adams’ criminal defense attorney, Alex Spiro, wrote to Bove that the prosecution of the Mayor 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 ….”
Spiro further stressed 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 ….”
One week later, on February 10, 2025, Bove directed federal prosecutors to dismiss with prejudice the pending criminal charges against Mayor Adams.
The plaintiffs allege that these negotiations traded away city policies or privileges in exchange for the dropping of the charges, a charge that Adams vehemently denies.
On February 13, 2025, after meeting with the Administration’s “Border Czar,” Thomas Homan, Mayor Adams announced that he would issue an executive order allowing federal immigration authorities to be present on Rikers Island. The next day, the Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss all pending criminal charges against Mayor Adams.
After the announcement, a number of deputy mayors resigned in protest. Adams then appointed Randy Mastro as First Deputy and delegated to him 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 8, 2025, Mastro issued Executive Order No. 50, authorizing the Department of Corrections to enter a Memorandum of Understanding with federal law enforcement agencies allowing them to maintain office space on Department of Corrections property, specifically Rikers Island.
The timing of these actions raised objections from many, both inside and outside City Hall. That included United States District Judge Dale Ho, who agreed to dismiss the criminal charges with prejudice, but not after lashing out at the administration. Ho wrote that “[e]verything here smacks of a bargain: dismissal of the [i]ndictment in exchange for immigration policy concessions.” He further warned that 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.”
I disagreed with Judge Ho’s use of the order to opine on an alleged quid pro quo that was not established in the record or even material to his decision. Ho agreed that he could not “force the Department of Justice to prosecute a defendant” and agreed to dismiss the matter with prejudice. That was the correct and only decision that he could make. However, he further strongly suggested the need for an investigation but lamented that he “did not have the authority to appoint an independent prosecutor.”
I do not question Judge Ho’s sincere objections or the good-faith basis of many in raising this allegation. However, I do not believe that judges or justices should use their positions to opine on political or ethical issues that are not clearly before them. The issue before Judge Ho was solely the dismissal of a criminal case and he had no record, or in my view license, to hold forth on his unsupported suspicions in the case.
The matter, however, was raised and litigated directly before Judge Rosado by the city council, which sought to nullify the Executive Order as being violative of city ethical rules. Specifically, the city council cited New York City Charter § 2604(b)(3), which provides in pertinent part 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.”
Judge Rosado found a likelihood of prevailing on the merits, citing Baker v. Marley, 8 NY2d 365, 367 (1960), that an action must be declared null and void when the action “directly or immediately affects him individually.” She specifically found:
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.
In my view, the decision is wrong on a number of key elements.
Who decides?
First, Judge Rosado heard this case despite the fact that there is a process for such allegations to be raised and adjudicated before the Conflict of Interest Board. Rosado recognizes the obvious problem and admits that
“[t]o be clear, the Conflicts of Interest Board is the preferred and proper forum for many garden variety conflict of interest disputes, such as those involving improper gifts, failures to disclose financial interests, and other financial conflicts.
However, the Conflicts of Interest Board is not equipped with the powers and tools to grapple with the case, which involves the promulgation of an Executive Order at lightning speed, upending a decree of New York policy barring federal law enforcement authorities from maintaining a presence on Department of Corrections property.”
I found the court’s logic on this portion of the opinion to be conclusory and counterintuitive. There is nothing in the law or regulations that defines the Board as focused on “garden-variety” conflicts. It is the system created by the city council to address conflict allegations and, while Judge Rosado believes that she can do better than the board, that is hardly a convincing basis to circumvent the process for the adjudication of such claims. Rosado ignores that this is a specialized body expressly tasked with such conflicts. It is unclear how the court is “better equipped” with its own limited staff to address such matters, other than having the ability to issue judicial injunctions.
Deception or Delegation?
Putting aside this act of judicial overreach, there is also the problem that the order was ultimately issued not by Adams but by Mastro. There are very compelling public policy reasons for taking this action. The city is struggling with the massive demands of its undocumented immigrant population. Before he was ever charged, Adams was viewed as a moderate on such questions who was open to greater federal enforcement. Many states and cities cooperate with federal authorities in this way as a matter of public policy.
Judge Rosado admits that there is a valid question of whether the delegation constituted a type of recusal or cleansing of the decision. However, she maintained that Mastro is not independent because he was appointed by Adams and reports to him. Moreover, she cited New York City Charter § 2604(b)(3), which states that delegating oversight or management does not necessarily erase a conflict of interest. She notes that Adams said publicly that he did not recuse himself and found:
“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.”
It is not clear, however, who would be sufficiently free of Adams’ authority to allow for them to make the myriad of decisions vis-a-vis federal authority. In this matter, Mastro and the Mayor’s office are arguing that he made an independent judgment on the merits of the policy. More importantly, Judge Rosado ignores the implications of her order. She never explains how the city is to function if any order dealing with the federal government could be viewed as part of a quid pro quo. There are a host of joint operations and programs with the federal government. Where does one draw the line and who then makes these decisions ranging from housing to prisons to voting? Rosado seems to shrug and say that anyone reporting to the Mayor or subject to his authority is not sufficiently independent.
The Order
Judge Rosado ultimately finds against Adams, but includes rhetoric exulting the prior pro-immigration policies that further undermines the opinion:
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.
…
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…
I was frankly astonished by the direct discussion of the Mayor’s criminal charges in the conjunction with negotiations over enhanced federal enforcement. While I understand the defense counsel’s job to seek any lawful avenue for relief, I would have immediately cut off such discussions as inappropriate from the perspective of the Justice Department. If such discussions occurred, there is a legitimate concern over a quid pro quo. However, this is not how courts should address such allegations. I believe both Judge Ho (who ruled correctly) and Judge Rosado (who did not) exceeded the parameters for their opinions with extraneous commentary. That is particularly the case with Judge Rosado. More importantly, I believe that Judge Rosado is simply wrong in circumventing the designated board for addressing conflicts of interest and issuing this sweeping opinion.
This is not an easy matter for any board or court. These meetings and the timing of these decisions raise obvious concerns. However, courts are not allowed to engage in conjecture. It is not just plausible but likely that Adams would have extended the access to Rikers Island even without any change in his criminal case.
I do not see the limiting principle in this decision. Adams is still the mayor and may have independent and good-faith reasons for orders that are favorable for the federal government. Indeed, his order was the correct one on the merits. While Judge Rosado never explores the countervailing benefits while writing at length on the costs to a city of immigrants, they are obvious and cannot be ignored. In other words, Adams had every reason to support federal enforcement as a Mayor who ran on making New York a safer city.
This matter should have been left to the Conflicts of Interest Board, and the decision itself is ill-considered and incomplete.
Not a big deal, but didn’t the Fed DOJ move to drop the charges against Mayor Adams *without* prejudice, but Judge Ho decided to drop the charges *with* prejudice? Presumably so the DOJ would not be able to use the possibility of re-filing as a club to control Mayor Adams?
Bingo.
(apology for not seeing your comment before writing mine. Still, I had added opinion text to show that Adams had filed his own motion to dismiss with prejudice- and DOJ did not object. So Judge Ho was not acting sua sponte.
I agree with all points made except that we overlooked the obvious one – the judge is a liberal activist in a black robe. Sorta explains the pretzel logic used to get the desired result. Why we can’t call a spade a spade is one of the law’s great shortcomings.
“The judge is just another liberal activist in a black robe. “
Mespo, after watching Garland nearly reach the Supreme Court and then watching his conduct as Attorney General, I’ve lost faith in the judiciary. I never used to check a judge’s party, but now I do, because Democrat judges rarely rule by the Constitution. They shouldn’t be on the bench.
Has anyone else noticed that even the manner of speaking on the left is now indistinguishable from that of a military regime, replete with war and combat metaphors? None of this is sanity, and sure as heck isn’t peaceful. And it’s largely just them.
These judges are indistinguishable from any of the other players in that ideology. The left’s transformation away from Constitutional ideals is complete, methinks, I no longer personally think a realignment or reorientation toward center on the left is possible.
“I no longer personally think a realignment or reorientation toward center on the left is possible.”
This sentence reeks of militaristic doublespeak straight out of Orwell’s novel titled 1984.
Lefties and righties are all capable of sounding like brainwashed robots.
@Anonymous
No, it doesn’t. Yours reeks of being paid by the word, though. And it isn’t as clever as you think to space it out amongst a multitude of comments so that it appears you aren’t just comment bombing for money all at once. Surely your employers understand by now that in this particular forum, those dollars are being wasted?
This is just in response to trumps directive for ice to Crackdown on blue cities naming new york specifically
Simple answer. It’s where more of the illegals are. Because of the dem-o-rats actions.
Dustoff,
Yeah, I thought it was kinda obvious. But, some people just have to have even a simple answer spelled out for them.
NYC has rats that drag around slices of pizza. Pizza night with the kiddies. …
I live in upstate NY and my son’s house is in Homan’s home town but even here, daily – a far distance from NYC – we have daily ICE arrests of illegals from central america and beyond. This is due to the infestation of progs in Albany and NYC. We need a total fumigation of this nation and I’m not just referring to the illegals.
The New York judicial system has irreparably destroyed its reputation. First, it was the lawfare against Donald Trump. If I were a major corporation, I would exit as fast as possible.
Ah, if Only the Court would apply this absurd theory to itself!
The judges and Turley missed a vital point in this case. Assuming, arguendo, that there was a quid pro quo, that is, that in return for access to Riker’s Island by ICE, the Department of Justice dropped the case against Adama, so what? Quid pro quo deals are part of the justice system; without them, major and minor crimes would often go unsolved. And of course, every quid pro quo deal is technically a conflict of interest, but again, so what?
Here, Adams had the authority to do something the Justice Department wanted, and he obligingly did so in return for what the Department offered to do for him. How different is this from legions of suspects every day who plead guilty to charges after cutting a deal with their prosecutors to reduce the potential charges against them, and often the potential charges that might be brought against their relatives, spouses, or friends?
Quid pro quo justice is as American as apple pie, and as for the 14th Amendment concerns, equal justice would be in question if the Department did NOT offer the mayor a deal. Millions of criminal and civil cases are settled each year based on deals made by the prospective defendants with prosecutors. All of them are essentially quid pro quo arrangements. If it were not for this practice, courts would lack the resources to try every case, and the system would quickly collapse. In the Adams case, the judges and others may not like the deal, but it’s not their concern.
The quid and the pro quo were apples and oranges in this case? It was a reopen , not an open if it matters.
Anon: I don’t think that matters. The point is that a deal is a deal and perfectly lawful when made by people under charges or facing charges who have something of value to offer the government in return for leniency or other form of mitigation. Mobster Sammy the Bull Gravano murdered at least 17 people but turned states evidence against John Gotti and others. He’s alive and well today and living life in the Witness Protection Program. An 1878 Supreme Court case (U.S. v Ford) acknowledged a prosecutor’s inherent authority to enter into informal immunity agreements with criminals in exchange for their cooperation. The practice has been expanded over the years to include all sorts of quids for all sorts of quos. The Adams deal was perfectly lawful.
JJC,
Thank you for your legal insight and analysis.
Chaos and disruption are the only tools left for the prog/left dem. Like a toddler in a supermarket cookie aisle throwing a tantrum and destroying the store in a rage because he couldn’t have a cookie.
If Trump is for it, then the dims are against it. It’s that simple.
Even if it were a cure for cancer…the insanity of their cult goes that deep.
You can’t deport millions of people when representation is at stake, sheesh…
“So we must earn the respect of the other branches. We must demonstrate that our rulings are based on what the law is—not our personal views on what the law should be.”
Speaking of bad opinions. Judge Ho is one to talk. He states the judicial Branch is the weakest of the three, but our system of government and the constitution makes all three braches co-equal. Neither is more powerful than the the other. That’s how our system of goverment designed. Republicans and conservatives hate the idea of co-equal branches because it limits their desire to rule over everyone they don’t agree with. It’s when they are not in power that they invoke the importance of co-equal branches. Trump doesn’t want that. The unitary executive theory dispenses with the idea. Because Republicans want to rule, not not govern.
george
our rulings are based on what the law is—not our personal views on what the law should be.”
*********************
LOL. What a joke. Show me a man and I’ll show you a crime.
Haw many J6 were throw in jail for a long time with zero charges and no lawyer.
Another Left Wing DEM Liberal Woke unqualified NY Judge ruling. The DEMS will do anything to protect their illegals while a regular citizen and those legal immigrants are treated as second class and have to put up with the crimes and corruption of the illegals and the Left Wing DEM party.
Where would we be without judge shopping.
Americans’ confidence in the U.S. judicial system has fallen to a record low of 35%, according to a new Gallup poll.
This marks a sharp 24-point drop over the last four years, setting the U.S. apart from other wealthy nations where trust in judicial systems remains higher on average.
And this poll was conducted six month ago, but I’m sure things have gotten better, ha.
“In other words, Adams had every reason to support federal enforcement as a Mayor who ran on making New York a safer city.”
Nope. Turley with his usual smattering of half-truths and disingenuous purveying of facts ignores the obvious.
Adams’s decision to support federal enforcement was made because he was offered a deal by the Trump DOJ. They will drop the charges and in exchange he would allow the Trump administration to operate unfettered with his immigration raids. Even ultra-conservative judge Ho was fully aware that the quid-pro-quo was perpetrated by the Trump administation glaringly obvious.
The board Turley says should be the venue to decide this is not equipped to deal with this level of open corruption by the Trump DOJ. This is why the federal prosecutor in the case resigned. It was a blatant form of blackmail that only Trump would be happy with.
george
Nope. Turley with his usual smattering of half-truths and disingenuous purveying of facts ignores the obvious.
***** what a joke you are. (fact) The crime exploded in NY.
George disgorges, “Even ultra-conservative judge Ho was fully aware that the quid-pro-quo was perpetrated by the Trump administation [sic] glaringly obvious.”
Dale Ho was appointed by Biden and is absolutely NOT conservative. He’s in fact a court radical. You might be thinking of James Ho who was quoted below by Estovir (7:46 AM) in a writ of mandamus case.
As I recall, a lot of reasonable people believed that Adams was charged with non-crimes as payback for criticizing Biden’s immigration policies. As usual, it’s your guys who started this.
You’re right Diogenes I was thinking of James Ho.
Adams was charged fro bribery and other related crimes due to evidence. Not criticism of Biden.
“Adams’s decision to support federal enforcement was made because . . .”
And the Biden administration’s decision to indict Adams. What was that based on?
Here’s a hint: He criticized Biden’s immigration policies.
Absolutely no problem with bringing trump administration corruption, as to its bearing on a wildly flawed EO, into Rosado’s decision. Party TF on. Righteous decision.
The Conflicts of Interest Board mandate is to investigate potential conflicts. Except the Conflicts of Interest Board is not competent to investigate conflicts. This ruling courtesy of the Salvadore Dali school of surreal legal reasoning.
If the goal is to destroy public confidence in the judiciary, how would it behave different?
why bother voting when judges RUN THE COUNTRY!
I want these judge not just removed…but jailed!
The photo of the 3 Democrats in black masks, which do absoultely nothing to prevent transmission of virions, reminds Americans of a damaging, corrosive, painful period in our country, inflicted by Democrats. Democrats took away the voices and freedoms of Americans, and Democrat Judges are doing it as well today.
The following opinion given by Judge James Ho of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at New Orleans is appropos even if it was intended for US District Judges. His main points apply also to Judge Mary V. Rosado (Democrat)
Our Founders didn’t fight a Revolutionary War to replace one king in royal garb with hundreds of kings in judicial robes. Judges are only supposed to interpret and apply the law to whatever disputes are brought before us. So we’re not an active branch—we’re a passive branch. And under the Constitution of our Founders, the judiciary is the least powerful branch. We have the power to issue judgments—but we lack the power to enforce them. We hold neither the sword nor the purse. All we have is our voice.
So we must earn the respect of the other branches. We must demonstrate that our rulings are based on what the law is—not our personal views on what the law should be.
The American people don’t believe in judicial independence so that judges can be imperial—the people believe in judicial independence so that judges will be impartial. If we lose their trust, that will be fatal to the rule of law. And it will be entirely our fault.
James C. Ho, Circuit Judge, concurring
“Petition for a Writ of Mandamus
to the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
USDC No. 3:12-CV-796”
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-30088-CV0.pdf
The left is getting way out of hand.
****************************
BREAKING: Former Coast Guard lieutenant who self-identifies as Antifa arrested and charged with threats to kill President Trump.
My opinion was that Judge Rosado did not trust anyone else to block the Federal Government from being at RIKERS and so took care of that herself come hell or high water. We also note that there seemed to be a rapidly placed charge placed against the Mayor by the Biden Administration when the Mayor started talking about cooperating with ICE and dealing with a city running over with immigrants, illegal or otherwise. Such as the extraordinary cost, housing and likely crime. Wonder what will happen when the federal dollar spigot starts to dry up.
GEB,
That is a good point. The Biden admin, Democrats were happy with forcing Adams to take in all those illegals until the illegals began assaulting people, stealing, other crimes and then Adams became critical of the Biden admin and their open border policy.
Up
Notice that george doesn’t bring up the (fact) about how came has gone thru the roof since Biden was the Prez.
Upstatefarmer, huh? Biden was not forcing Mayor Adams to do anything. You seem terribily confused.
Texas Governor Abbott was sending immigrants by bus to NY. Texas was forcing Adams to take on all those immigrants. Not Biden. Silly upstate. Adams was being critical of Texas. Not Biden.
Adams was indicted for taking bribes from a foreign government in exchange for some favors. The Trump administration seeing how Adams was not opposed to taking bribes took advantage of blackmailing Adams into accepting Trump immigration policies in exchange for dropping the charges. We all know Trump loves extortion and blackmail as “negotiating” tactics.
Not to mention, once again, the Biden administration was free to completely ignore our immigration laws, to aggressively bring illegal aliens into our country, and the present administration is allowed to do nothing to combat it. Once again, the left is allowed to be political in any aspect of our civilization, including the judiciary, and this administration is not allowed to be political. How about a decision that no lawsuit or holding against the Trump administration can be valid as a general presumption, because so many have been found to be political and without merit? It would be no more political than these decisions.
Common sense must prevail among our electorate. The games against the Democrats must increase drastically so that virtually all of them are removed from power. I do not want a one party government by any stretch as it would almost inevitably become corrupt, but the left itself far steered away from common sense that cannot be allowed to control anywhere people hope to live safely.