Yesterday, four deputy mayors of New York City, including First Deputy Mayor Maria Torres Springer, resigned from the administration of Mayor Eric Adams. The move is the latest consequence of the Justice Department memo ordering the Southern District of New York to dismiss the corruption charges against Adams without prejudice (meaning they could be reinstated in the future). Following the resignations, City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams called on the mayor to resign. Comptroller Brad Lander (a candidate in this year’s mayoral election) asked Adams to provide a contingency plan by the end of the week or potentially face the convening of a five-member Inability Committee that could remove the mayor. Governor Kathy Hochul also said late Monday that she would convene a meeting for today to decide the mayor’s future.
Reasonable minds can disagree about the propriety and utility of dismissing the charges against Adams. But it’s increasingly apparent that the Justice Department made a series of tactical missteps by pursuing a conditional dismissal instead of a full pardon.
First, the conditional dismissal made it appear like Adams was in hock to Trump. The memo’s author, Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove, wrote that the move had nothing to do with the merits of the case brought against the mayor. The charges, he suggested, unduly interfered in the forthcoming mayoral election and hindered the mayor from devoting “full attention and resources” to illegal immigration and violent crime. These issues, important to President Trump’s agenda, suggested that Adams and Trump struck a deal: cooperation with immigration enforcement in exchange for clemency.
Second, the conditional dismissal required cooperation that wasn’t assured. Given the Southern District of New York’s reputation for fierce independence, it was reasonably foreseeable that ordering a dismissal would engender defiance. Indeed, on Thursday, Acting U.S. Attorney Danielle Sassoon resigned rather than carry out Bove’s order. Sassoon, a former clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia and member of the Federalist Society, is a sober-minded professional with the highest credentials in the conservative legal world. At least five other Justice Department officials followed. In the end, the dismissal motion came directly from Washington, D.C. By heightening the sense of injustice, these resignations in protest raised the stakes for the dismissal and invited city and state elected officials to call for Adams’s resignation or ouster.
Worse, Judge Dale E. Ho (a Biden appointee) must approve the Justice Department’s dismissal for it to take legal effect. Given the high stakes involved and the appearance of a quid pro quo, Judge Ho might well deny the motion, perhaps prompting Trump to pardon Adams anyway. (The situation is similar to what happened with former national security adviser Michael Flynn in 2020.)
Third, Adams committed a major faux pas by appearing on the Fox and Friends show with Tom Homan, Trump’s border czar. During the interview, Homan warned Adams that he’d be “up his butt” if Adams failed to deliver on his end of the deal on immigration. Adams had little to gain politically or legally by making his alliance so public, and the exchange only made him appear further indebted to Trump.
A pardon would likely have avoided at least some of these issues. As a unilateral and unreviewable action, Trump’s pardon wouldn’t have needed anyone else’s cooperation or approval. The president could have framed the move as giving Adams a reprieve from a Biden-era witch hunt and letting the people of New York decide whether they want to reelect the embattled mayor.
So, what’s next for the mayor and his city? Adams sounded defiant over the weekend, rebuffing numerous calls for his resignation. Barring resignation, Adams can be removed in one of two ways, both unprecedented: by the governor or by the Inability Committee. If Adams leaves office or is removed before March 26, far-left Public Advocate Jumaane Williams would assume the position of acting mayor and call a special election to replace Adams within approximately 80 days. The winner would immediately take office for the remainder of Adams’s term. This election would be open to all registered voters and use ranked-choice voting.
Chances are slim that the Inability Committee would remove Adams. Included in the city charter following mayor Ed Koch’s stroke in 1987, the committee may only have the legal authority to determine health-related incapacities. Assuming that the committee has the power, ousting Adams would require a vote of four out of five members, and at least two (the Corporation Counsel and one deputy mayor) are mayoral appointees. That leaves Governor Hochul as the most likely path to removal, placing her in a conundrum.
No governor has ever removed a mayor of New York City. Though Article 13, Section 5 of the state constitution and the city charter grant the governor this authority, Chapter 1, Section 9 of the charter states that the mayor must be provided “an opportunity to be heard in his defense.” The mayor could turn that defense into a political spectacle, leveraging the earned media for his reelection campaign. It’s anyone’s guess how long such a defense would take. In theory, Adams could drag out the process to avoid removal by March 26, thus preventing a special election.
Even if Hochul manages to remove Adams before then, that would precipitate the most chaotic 80-day election season in New York’s political history. Many from across the political spectrum would toss their hats into the ring, seeing no downside to a ranked-choice run in a highly compressed timeline that would give the winner a big leg up in the June 24 primaries. Above all, a race open to all voters would benefit former governor Andrew Cuomo, whose name recognition and relatively moderate policy positions would give him a major advantage over other candidates. Hochul’s removing Adams would thus probably hasten the return of her former boss and current rival.
But if Hochul doesn’t remove the mayor, she’ll have to decide how closely she will work with the scandal-marred Adams over the next several months. The duo enjoyed a fairly warm relationship over the past three years, but their partnership now appears to be a liability for Hochul. If she does nothing and lets the political process play out, she’ll appear characteristically weak and indecisive—a bad look before next year’s gubernatorial election.
The chaos of the past week is building toward a climax, one that will perhaps be the final act of Eric Adams’s mayoralty.
Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images
