Introduction to the ICE Office on Rikers Island
A woman is pulled away by ICE at 26 Federal Plaza in Lower Manhattan on Sept. 3, 2025.
Photo by Dean Moses
Elected officials and criminal justice advocates have welcomed a New York State Supreme Court ruling on Monday that struck down an executive order issued by Mayor Eric Adams that sought to open an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) office at Rikers Island.
Judge Mary Rosado declared Executive Order 50 “null and void” on Monday, describing it as an “impermissible appearance of a conflict of interest” in the wake of the Trump Justice Department’s move to drop corruption charges against Hizzoner in exchange for cooperation with the administration’s immigration agenda.
The judge noted that Adams had signaled his intentions to allow immigration authorities into the Rikers Island facility three days after prosecutors were directed to drop corruption charges against him.
Background on the Executive Order
City Hall, however, has insisted that there is no conflict of interest and has indicated that it will appeal the ruling.
Adams’ Intentions and the Court’s Decision
The City Council, which sued the Mayor after Adams issued the executive order in April, welcomed the Sept. 8 state Supreme Court ruling as a “major win” for New York City.
A corrections vehicle leaves Rikers Island
Photo by Dean Moses
Reaction to the Ruling
Speaker Adrienne Adams, Deputy Speaker Diana Ayala, Criminal Justice Chair Sandy Nurse and Immigration Chair Alexa Avilés issued a joint statement on Monday evening stating that the ruling strengthens public safety and the Constitutional rights of all New Yorkers.
“We’re pleased that the court recognized Mayor Adams and Randy Mastro’s attempt to do Trump’s bidding and betray their obligation to New Yorkers as unlawful,” elected officials said in a joint statement. “This decision protects the civil rights of all New Yorkers from being violated and makes our city safer.”
Public Advocate Jumaane Williams said he was proud to support the legal case against the executive order and described attempts to invite ICE onto Rikers Island as a “quid pro quo.” He additionally described the executive order as an example of overreach and accused Adams of being Trump’s “deputy in City Hall.”
“Whether on immigration, fair bail laws or several other areas, the Adams administration seems eager to support the Trump narrative rather than defend the facts. That may serve the mayor well in his next job, but it does not serve the people of New York City,” Williams said.
Advocates’ Views on the Ruling
Criminal justice advocates also welcomed Monday’s ruling, accusing the Mayor of attempting to sell out immigrant New Yorkers.
Melanie Dominguez, organizing director for the Katal Center for Equity, Health and Justice, also described Adams’s “shameless” executive order as a “quid pro quo” with Trump to get his corruption charges dropped.
“We hail this ruling; instead of working with ICE to further criminalize immigrants, the Mayor should be working to shut down the deadly jail complex and protect all New Yorkers,” Dominguez said.
Darren Mack, co-director of “decarceration” advocacy group Freedom Agenda, said the decision is a victory for immigrant New Yorkers and for “all who believe that no one should be doubly punished with incarceration and deportation.”
“It affirms what community advocates have been saying for years: Rikers is a place of violence and human suffering, and allowing ICE to prey on people there only deepens the harm,” Mack said in a statement.
Appeal Efforts
First Deputy Mayor Randy Mastro speaks at the inaugural Excellence in Human Service Delivery Awards at Gracie Mansion on Aug. 19. Photo by Gabriele Holtermann
In a statement, Mastro said the Adams Administration disagrees with Judge Rosado’s decision and expressed confidence that the appeal will be successful. He also argued that “at no point” did Rosado dispute that the executive order “fully complies with local law.”
He also insisted that there was no conflict of interest in the executive order.
“There is no actual conflict of interest here, and the mayor responded to the appearance of a conflict by delegating this issue to me as his first deputy mayor,” Mastro said. “I acted entirely independently of the mayor.”
Mastro further contended that the executive order sought to facilitate the criminal prosecution of violent transnational gangs that commit crimes in New York City.
“Our administration has never, and will never, do anything to jeopardize the safety of law-abiding immigrants, and this executive order ensures their safety as well,” Mastro added.
Critics of the executive order had argued that the law would allow ICE to operate within Rikers Island with little oversight.
U.S. Rep. Nydia Velázquez said the ruling “affirms the civil rights of New Yorkers” while also protecting immigrant communities from “Trump’s deportation machine.”
“New York is a sanctuary state,” Velázquez said. “We categorically reject ICE’s lawless presence in our neighborhoods. We will not allow immigrant families to be terrorized or let ICE undermine the values of justice and humanity that define our city and state.”
Conclusion
The ruling by the New York State Supreme Court to strike down Mayor Eric Adams’ executive order to open an ICE office on Rikers Island has been met with support from elected officials and criminal justice advocates. The decision has been seen as a major win for New York City, protecting the civil rights of all New Yorkers and making the city safer. However, the Adams administration has expressed confidence that the appeal will be successful, arguing that there is no conflict of interest in the executive order.
FAQs
Q: What was the executive order issued by Mayor Eric Adams?
A: The executive order sought to open an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) office at Rikers Island.
Q: Why was the executive order struck down by the court?
A: The court declared the executive order “null and void” due to an “impermissible appearance of a conflict of interest” in the wake of the Trump Justice Department’s move to drop corruption charges against Mayor Adams.
Q: How have elected officials and advocates reacted to the ruling?
A: Elected officials and criminal justice advocates have welcomed the ruling, seeing it as a major win for New York City and a protection of the civil rights of all New Yorkers.
Q: Will the Adams administration appeal the ruling?
A: Yes, the Adams administration has expressed confidence that the appeal will be successful, arguing that there is no conflict of interest in the executive order.
