A New York State Supreme Court judge has struck down Mayor Eric Adams’ executive order to reestablish an Immigration and Customs Enforcement office at the Rikers Island jail complex, declaring the order “null and void” and finding that the process that produced it was tainted by an appearance of conflict of interest.
In a written decision issued Monday, Justice Mary V. Rosado said Mayor Adams failed to adhere to the city charter’s requirements to avoid conflicts and not use his office to benefit himself, and that his partial delegation of the matter to First Deputy Mayor Randy Mastro did not cure the defect. Rosado permanently barred the mayor from signing any agreement with ICE tied to Rikers, concluding that the executive order was illegal and therefore a nullity, making an injunction unnecessary.
Rosado’s ruling came amid a protracted legal fight between the City Council and the mayor’s office over Executive Order No. 50, which sought to restore a federal immigration presence at the troubled jail complex. The decision follows earlier rulings by Rosado this year that temporarily and then indefinitely blocked the order while litigation proceeded.
The City Council’s 29-page complaint, filed in April, alleged that Adams had struck a deal with the Trump administration to secure ICE’s return to Rikers in exchange for favorable treatment in a federal criminal prosecution. Rosado cited the timeline of public statements, the dismissal last spring of the mayor’s federal criminal case, and his on-air appearances with former ICE official Tom Homan as evidence creating an impermissible appearance of a conflict of interest.
"The timeline of public statements and the ongoing criminal prosecution so clearly demonstrate an impermissible appearance of a conflict of interest," Rosado wrote. "The appearance of this conflict and Mayor Adams' failure to recuse himself fully tainted the entire process by which Executive Order No. 50 was issued, making it null and void."
Rosado rejected the administration’s argument that delegating authority to First Deputy Mayor Mastro cured any conflict. She said Mastro was not independent of the mayor, noting that he was appointed and delegated the specific task of issuing the order after Adams made his desired outcome publicly known. The judge also criticized the mayor’s office for not consulting the city’s Conflicts of Interest Board or otherwise determining whether the executive order was ethically appropriate.
The council’s lawsuit extensively quoted Homan, who during interviews with the mayor indicated expectations of follow-through on an "agreement." The suit said Homan spoke openly of using a Rikers-based ICE presence to pursue broad deportation actions. City Council plaintiffs argued those public comments, paired with the timing of the prosecution’s dismissal, created the appearance of an improper quid pro quo.
City Hall issued a forceful response to the ruling, saying the administration "vehemently disagrees" and plans to appeal. First Deputy Mayor Mastro, who signed the executive order after Adams’ delegation, defended his actions in a statement, saying he acted "entirely independently of the mayor" and that the order complies with local law. Mastro reiterated the administration's position that the measure targets violent transnational gangs and would not be used to assist in civil immigration enforcement, which local law prohibits.
"There is also no actual conflict of interest here, and the mayor responded to the appearance of a conflict by delegating this issue to me," Mastro said. "I acted entirely independently of the mayor." The administration said it remained confident it would prevail on appeal and stressed the judge did not dispute the substance of the executive order.
Rosado’s ruling means the city is legally prohibited from entering into any agreement with ICE to place agents at Rikers under the now-invalidated executive order. The decision resolves the immediate question before the trial court, but the administration’s stated intent to appeal indicates the dispute will continue in higher courts.
Advocates and elected officials have sharply differed over the policy and legal questions surrounding ICE’s presence at city jails, with opponents arguing the move undermines immigrant trust in local institutions and supporters asserting it is necessary for public safety. The judge’s decision focuses on legal and ethical constraints under the city charter rather than the underlying immigration policy.
The City Council sought an injunction to prevent the executive order from taking effect; Rosado concluded that was unnecessary once she found the order to be void. The litigation timeline began with the council’s April filing and included interim rulings by Rosado that kept the order from being implemented while the parties litigated.
With the trial-court ruling now entered, the next steps are for the Adams administration to file an appeal if it chooses, and for both sides to brief any appellate court on the legal issues the city faces regarding executive authority, conflicts of interest and the scope of municipal involvement with federal immigration enforcement.
