New York City Council on Tuesday, April 15, filed a lawsuit requesting a temporary restraining order (TRO) and a preliminary injunction against Mayor Eric Adams’ Executive Order 50 allowing Trump’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency to operate an office on Rikers Island Correctional Facility that would facilitate the deportation of Caribbean and other immigrants.
The executive order was issued by First Deputy Mayor Randy Mastro on April 8.
The lawsuit contends that the executive order is “unlawful, tainted by the conflict of interest created by the corrupt bargain the mayor entered into – his personal freedom in exchange for an ICE office.
“The law is clear that the mayor is unable to cure that conflict of interest simply by delegating his authority to open an ICE office to Deputy Mayor Mastro,” it says.
In seeking an immediate halt of any associated activity, the lawsuit outlines how the “unlawful action” would undermine public safety in New York City by eroding trust between local government, including local law enforcement and New Yorkers.
It also argues that the mayor never delegated the specified duty to Mastro, as required by the City Charter.
“Once again, this City Council is standing firm to protect the rights and safety of all New Yorkers against attacks by the Trump administration — because the city’s mayor won’t stop placing his own personal interests ahead of the people of our city,” said Speaker Adrienne Adams, a candidate for Mayor of the City of New York in June’s Democratic Primary.
“Mayor Eric Adams clearly indicated his intention for this executive order when the Trump administration attempted to dismiss his corruption case in what prosecutors and Judge Ho saw as a quid pro quo.
“The mayor has compromised our city’s sovereignty and is now threatening the safety of all New Yorkers, which is why we are filing this lawsuit to halt his illegal order that he shamelessly previewed on the Fox News couch with Tom Homan,” she added. “When New Yorkers are afraid of cooperating with our city’s own police, and discouraged from reporting crime and seeking help, it makes everyone in our city less safe.
“This is a naked attempt by Eric Adams to fulfill his end of the bargain for special treatment he received from the Trump administration,” Speaker Adams continued. “New York cannot afford its mayor colluding with the Trump administration to violate the law, and this lawsuit looks to the court to uphold the basic standard of democracy, even if our mayor won’t.”
The City Council said that on the same day that Trump’s Department of Justice (DOJ) ordered Adams’ federal corruption case dismissed without prejudice, the mayor met with Trump’s border czar Tom Homan and expressed his intention to invite ICE onto Rikers via executive order.
“The political intervention in the corruption case led several top federal prosecutors to resign and assert the actions amounted to a quid pro quo,” it said.
The Council noted that Federal Judge Dale Ho, who declined to immediately dismiss the case and sought independent arguments, indicated that “Everything here smacks of a bargain: dismissal of the indictment in exchange for immigration policy concessions.”
The City Council said the executive order pertains to Local Law 58 of 2014 that prevents federal immigration authorities from maintaining an office on Rikers Island.
Last week, the Council passed Resolution 836, authorizing Speaker Adams to take legal action to defend against the mayoral administration’s violation of Sanctuary Laws and the Trump administration’s attacks on the City of New York.
“Mayor Adams’ willingness to trade away our city’s safety in exchange for personal protection isn’t just outrageous—it’s dangerous and unlawful,” said Deputy Speaker Diana Ayala. “New Yorkers deserve a mayor that defends our city and communities, not one that invites chaos upon us.
Speaker Adrienne Adams and the Council are doing exactly what this moment demands: standing up for New Yorkers against a mayor failing to be accountable to the people of our city,” she added.
City Council Member Sandy Nurse, chair of the Committee on Criminal Justice, said, “Personal political deals should never dictate city policy, especially when they threaten rights as fundamental as due process and public safety.
“This unlawful executive order sets a dangerous precedent and makes our city less safe,” she said. “Handing the keys of New York City government over to the Trump administration to dismantle New Yorkers’ rights cannot be allowed. We aren’t standing by while this corrupt deal unfolds – we will be fighting this in court and defending the integrity of our laws.”
Another Council Member Alexa Avilés, chair of the Committee on Immigration, said that, “Turning Rikers into an outpost for the Trump administration’s extreme agenda has nothing to do with protecting New Yorkers and everything to do with the mayor protecting himself.
“Selling out our city’s diverse immigrant communities that built this city to Trump will make every New Yorker less safe,” she said. “The Council is taking this fight to court to defend our city when the mayor won’t and calling this what it is: a disgraceful and blatant quid pro quo.”
The lawsuit says Executive Order 50 is “the poisoned fruit of Mayor Adams’ deal with the Trump administration: if the mayor cooperated with the administration’s immigration enforcement priorities, including by permitting ICE to operate on Rikers, the charges against him would be dismissed.”
It also says that “The mayor’s decision to have Mastro issue the EO (executive order) on April 8, 2025, does not magically cleanse the taint of conflict from the order”.
In addition, the lawsuit contends that “ICE has long been notorious for sweeping unintended targets into its enforcement activities, meaning that allowing ICE back onto Rikers for the purpose of criminal investigation purposes is only a short and slippery slope to civil immigration enforcement.
“In fact, ICE routinely arrests immigrants who simply happen to be in the vicinity of its intended target, despite lacking a warrant or even probable cause with respect to those ‘collateral’ arrestees,” it says. “And it continues to do so in violation of a federal court order that limited this practice in 2022 but which it has flagrantly disregarded.”
