Gov. Hochul and Mayor Adams have privately feuded over migrant aid. Then their letters leaked.

News that the state’s top Democrat had issued a “scathing” criticism of one of her closest allies lit up political and advocacy circles last week.

The battle over migrant aid between Mayor Eric Adams and Gov. Kathy Hochul spilled into public view after the New York Times reported on a letter from Hochul’s lawyers that portrayed the city’s response to the migrant crisis as slow, disorganized and counterproductive.

If Adams had had his way, the letter would have never become public.

The day before the Times published its story, lawyers for the city sought to have the letter sealed, only for the request to be turned down by a state judge in Manhattan presiding over the consent decree case known as Callahan v. Carey, according to two people with knowledge of the email discussions. The state’s lawyers argued there was no need to keep the letter confidential and Judge Erika Edwards agreed.

The conflict underscores the murky and seemingly contradictory court proceedings around the city’s decades-old right to shelter obligation, which guarantees beds for homeless New Yorkers. Like previous legal disputes over the right to shelter, court hearings involving Callahan have been held behind closed doors inside the judge’s chambers.

The theory is that by keeping the proceedings private, both sides will ease off any political squabbles and avoid trying to score points with the public. But that ended with the publication of the letter, which exposed the simmering divisions behind Hochul and Adams' public facade of unity.

Both sides are now arguing over who should assume greater responsibility in sheltering the nearly 60,000 migrants currently under the city’s care as well as the thousands who arrive each week. On Thursday, Hochul joined Adams in pressuring President Joe Biden to respond to the crisis, but drew a line against relocating migrants to other parts of the state.

On the recent issue, the mayor’s office said the state’s letter had been leaked before the court issued its decision and that administration officials had themselves agreed to withhold a prior letter at the state's request.

“In early August, New York City submitted its letter to the state as per the court’s order, even though the state had requested we not do so,” Kayla Mamelak, the mayor’s spokesperson, said in a statement. “As a gesture of deference to our state partners and in acknowledgment of the ‘off the record’ nature of Callahan proceedings conducted in chambers, we refrained from disclosing the letter's contents to the public at that time. When the state crafted their response, we requested a similar level of consideration to ensure both letters would be treated equally. Unfortunately, the state's letter found its way into various news outlets before the court issued a clarifying decision on whether the letters could be released publicly.”

The governor’s office maintained that state officials have followed the court’s rules.

“The state recognizes that Callahan proceedings have been conducted as 'conference in chambers' since 1984, and respects the court's right to make the ultimate determination about what is and is not public,” said Avi Small, a spokesperson for the governor, in an emailed statement. “We have not requested the Judge keep any documents related to these proceedings confidential.”

Although the format of the court hearings were explained and understood, the rules around the sharing of official correspondence did not appear to be clearly spelled out at the outset.

“There should be consistency throughout the process,” said Norman Siegel, the former head of the New York Civil Liberties Union who is an informal adviser to the mayor. “If it deals with documents that are exchanged, there should at a minimum be guidance on what can be released publicly and what should not be released publicly.”

Siegel said that given the stakes of the issue, he favored having the entire proceedings held in open court. Under the First Amendment, the press and public have rights to access judicial proceedings.

“The public should always have the opportunity to know what’s going on within a court proceeding especially if the issue is of public importance,” he said. “And the right to shelter is one of the quintessential issues of public concern.”

The matter first came before the court in May after Adams indicated he was interested in suspending the right to shelter amid the humanitarian crisis.

The Legal Aid Society, which has over the years defended the right to shelter, stepped forward as the plaintiff in the case.

Initially, the negotiations appeared to mainly revolve around the city and Legal Aid. But that changed earlier this month after scores of migrants were forced to sleep on city sidewalks because city officials said they had run out of room. After conferring with the three parties, the judge directed the state to become more involved in helping the city address the ongoing arrival of thousands of migrants seeking shelter.

City officials hailed the order as a significant victory. At the same time, they were careful to avoid appearing critical of Hochul. Adams held a press conference to talk about the city’s needs, but his team kept its correspondence with the state confidential.

But the collegiality ended after city officials received the state’s response on Aug. 15. To them, the 12-page letter marked a heavy escalation in tone. The state faulted the city with making multiple missteps, including failing to act quickly on proposals recommended by the state, taking too long to help migrants apply for asylum, and hiring a troubled medical contractor to provide services to migrants.

After the state’s letter came out, Adams launched his own public relations campaign, ordering all city agencies to use their social media accounts to promote a positive video showing city workers helping migrants with their asylum applications.

On Wednesday, a letter from the city pressuring the state to help relocate migrants outside the city — a plan the governor and some conservative counties oppose — was leaked to various news outlets, including Gothamist. In the letter, the city argued that the scale of the crisis “demands State leadership of a statewide solution.”

Legal experts say courts must balance the benefits of private negotiations against First Amendment interests.

Robert Hayes, the lawyer who brought the original 1979 case that resulted in the city’s right to shelter rules, said he favored open court proceedings, but acknowledged moments when “a degree of confidentiality is in the public interest.”

For example, officials may want to avoid publicizing a list of proposed shelter sites — such as one outlined in the city’s most recent letter — for fear of having community opposition unduly shape and stall negotiations.

“On the other hand, if I was a community activist I would say we have a right to know what is happening. There’s an interest in that too,” Hayes added.

On Wednesday, Councilmember Inna Vernikov, a Republican who represents parts of Brooklyn and has been critical of the city’s right to shelter, attended the court hearing and attempted to enter the judge’s chambers, but was rebuffed by a court officer.

“This is an issue that impacts all New Yorkers,” she said on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter. “The public should have the right to listen to negotiations about migrants and potential shelter locations. So much for transparency when it comes to such an important topic.”