Mayor Adams wants immigration officers back on Rikers. Can he do that?

Mayor Eric Adams announced last week that he is preparing an executive order that would welcome U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement agents back to Rikers Island, but it’s unclear if he can unilaterally overrule the city law that removed the agents from the jail complex more than a decade ago.

The declaration, announced after a meeting with President Donald Trump’s “border czar” Tom Homan on Thursday, was short on details. But immigrant advocates greeted it with derision — including Elora Mukherjee, the director of the Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at Columbia Law School, who said, “The mayor cannot with the stroke of a pen change our city laws by himself."

But City Councilmembers Robert Holden and Vickie Paladino applauded the move, with Holden saying Adams should have acted sooner and Paladino calling it "a great move by Mayor Adams." But the accommodation also raised a question about executive action: Does Adams have the power to do what he says he’ll do?

The answer is hardly certain, based on the few particulars provided by the mayor, policy experts and practitioners close to the issue. They said a clearer picture would emerge when the executive order, in all its detail, is issued.

Here’s what to know right now about Adam’s plan, announced after his meeting with Homan, who leads the White House’s pledged “mass deportation” initiative.

What did the mayor say he would do?

Adams said in a two-paragraph statement he is preparing an executive order to allow ICE agents to operate on Rikers Island.

The statement was widely rebuked, with critics saying the action amounted to a quid pro quo whereby Adams traded his support for the White House’s crackdown on illegal immigration in exchange for the Department of Justice’s pending dismissal of federal corruption charges against him.

The mayor has previously been critical of the city’s sanctuary city protections, and has complained that the measures go too far in shielding repeat offenders from immigration enforcement.

The mayor's statement last week didn’t elaborate on the scope of the ICE officers’ collaboration with city personnel, except to say the federal officials would assist the city’s Correction Intelligence Bureau “in their criminal investigations,” in particular those focused on violent criminals and gangs.

The bureau, among other tasks, investigates all new criminal conduct committed by incarcerated individuals or visitors to city jails. Bureau investigators work closely with prosecutors in all five boroughs, to present criminal investigations for prosecution.

How does the change Adams wants square up with existing city law?

A 2014 law specifically bars ICE from Rikers Island. It is part of a package of sanctuary city measures authorized by past mayors and City Councils over several decades.

Together the measures generally restrict the use of city personnel and resources in the enforcement of immigration law, which under the U.S. Constitution is a federal obligation.

However, the 2014 law included a loophole of sorts. It provides that a mayor may, by executive order, authorize immigration authorities to maintain an office on Rikers Island “for purposes unrelated to the enforcement of civil immigration laws.”

Does this mean the change sought by Adams would hold up to a legal challenge?

It’s unclear – and no one has filed a legal challenge at this point.

Louis Cholden-Brown, who worked as an attorney in the City Council when the 2014 sanctuary law was passed, said “the devil is in the details,” which Adams' statement lacked.

“On the face of this 2014 law, an executive order (by Adams) could be lawful,” Cholden-Brown said. “But time will tell what exact verbiage and authority the mayor seeks to invoke in that executive order. Certainly it remains a possibility that the executive order will attempt to exceed the bounds of what power was retained for the mayoralty.”

Neal D. Frishberg, an attorney in private practice whose clients have included immigrants at risk of deportation, took note of the 2014 loophole allowing ICE to remain on Rikers Island for purposes unrelated to civil immigration law enforcement, pending a future executive order.

But he was unconvinced the order envisioned by Adams was lawful.

“ I don't know what other reason ICE could possibly be on Rikers, other than enforcement of civil immigration laws,” said Frishberg. “If you're ICE, what else are you doing?”

The Adams statement doesn’t detail what restrictions would be in place for the ICE officers working on Rikers.

So ICE operated on Rikers until 2014. What prompted the change?

Peter Markowitz, a professor of law at Cardozo Law School and co-director of the Kathryn O. Greenberg Immigration Justice Clinic, said the law was prompted by the federal government’s efforts to “draft states and localities” into the business of immigration law enforcement, which the courts have said is the job of the federal government.

“The mayor (Bill de Blasio) and most importantly the speaker at the time, Melissa Mark-Viverito, were very interested in making crystal clear that New York is not in the deportation game,” Markowitz said.

Phil Desgranges,  the attorney in charge of criminal law reform at the Legal Aid Society, said the issues at Rikers included cases where unauthorized immigrants were accused of crimes, acquitted of those offenses, and who were placed into deportation proceedings anyway – because they were encountered by ICE officers operating in the jails

“And instances like that, I think really troubled New Yorkers,” Desgranges said. “It troubled the Legislature, and the City Council put in place protections to ensure that people would not just be summarily removed from the country because of an allegation.”

Trump signed legislation last month also targeting unauthorized immigrants awaiting trial – at Rikers and other detention facilities. What’s that about?

Trump signed legislation – the first of his second term – requiring the federal detention of unauthorized immigrants arrested or charged with theft and violent crimes.

The Laken Riley Act was passed with bipartisan support in Congress, with 46 Democrats in the House and 12 Democrats in the Senate supporting the measure.

ABC News, citing a government document, said the new law “would be impossible for ICE to implement” within existing resources and could cost $27 billion in the first year.

Opponents of the measure argue it could also lead to deportations of immigrants who have not been convicted of crimes.

What comes next in New York?

Kayla Mamelak, a spokesperson for Adams, said there is no imminent date for the executive order to be issued. But she added it would be soon.

Cholden-Brown said councilmembers could simply pass a law that invalidates any actions undertaken by Adams.

Alternatively, however, the matter would end up in court.

“Obviously, there's legal authorities that are looking at whether or not there should be a sort of lawsuit,” said Melissa Mark-Viverito, who served as speaker of the City Council that passed the 2014 law. “And I hope that there is one.”