The Quid Pro Quo, Redux
Alert readers will recall that back in February, there was considerable disagreement aired here on the VC about whether or not the DOJ’s decision to drop (at least temporarily) the criminal charges against NYC Mayor Eric Adams involved a “quid pro quo,” something like:
“Use your mayoral powers to give federal immigration agents greater access to NYC facilities (such as Rikers Island and other prisons) (quid) and we won’t prosecute you for bribery and corruption (quo).”
It seemed abundantly clear to me – bordering on the obvious – that there was such a quid pro quo,[1] whether or not it had been expressed out loud or merely, as Justice Kennedy put it once, with “knowing winks and nods.”[2] As District Judge Ho put it, in his opinion dismissing the indictment[3]:
“Everything here smacks of a bargain: dismissal of the Indictment in exchange for immigration policy concessions.”
Josh Blackman and Paul Cassell, however, thought otherwise.[4]
This question (of whether there was an improper quid pro quo) has come up once again, in a rather interesting and unusual context: a case in NY State court, Council of the City of New York v. Eric Adams in his official capacity as Mayor. As the caption indicates, Plaintiff is the NY City Council – the city’s main legislative institution – and it is suing the current Mayor, seeking to nullify an Executive Order that the Mayor issued six days after the case against him had been dismissed.[5] The E.O. in question (E.O. 50) authorized the NYC Department of Corrections to allow federal ICE agents to conduct operations, and to maintain a permanent presence, at the Rikers Island detention facility.
The Council’s claim, basically, is that
- Adams had a “personal or private interest” in the subject matter of the E.O. because of the deal he had made with federal prosecutors (“cooperate or we’ll prosecute”);
- Because of that personal or private interest, he was required to recuse himself from the matter at hand; and
- Under NY law, a failure to recuse oneself from taking action in which one has a “personal or private interest” renders the action null and void.
The court – NY Supre
Article from Reason.com
The Reason Magazine website is a go-to destination for libertarians seeking cogent analysis, investigative reporting, and thought-provoking commentary. Championing the principles of individual freedom, limited government, and free markets, the site offers a diverse range of articles, videos, and podcasts that challenge conventional wisdom and advocate for libertarian solutions. Whether you’re interested in politics, culture, or technology, Reason provides a unique lens that prioritizes liberty and rational discourse. It’s an essential resource for those who value critical thinking and nuanced debate in the pursuit of a freer society.
