New York politicians sue Adams to stop emergency order blocking individual ban

City legislators and prosecutor Jumaane Williams are suing Mayor Eric Adams’ administration over Hizzoner’s emergency orders suspending parts of a law banning solitary confinement in the city’s prisons.

The move marks the latest escalation in tensions between the mayor and city council.

The lawsuit, which the City Council and Williams announced Monday, was filed this morning in state Supreme Court in Manhattan. The aim is to stop the mayor’s emergency measures on July 27, which declared a state of emergency in the city’s prisons due to the impending implementation of the ban on solitary confinement and repealed parts of the new law.

The plaintiffs allege that Adams improperly used his executive powers by declaring a state of emergency simply based on the implementation date of a law passed by the Council over his veto.

City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams, in a statement, called the mayor’s use of emergency measures to stop the law “illegal and unprecedented abuse of power.”

“The City Council overrode the mayor’s veto of a ban on solitary confinement in city jails because its use has been proven to cause physical, psychological and emotional harm and makes our city and our jails less safe,” the spokesman said. “Mayor Adams’ decision to exceed his legal authority simply because he was outvoted undermines the foundation of our democracyy, and it must be invalidated.”

The council first passed the individual ban late last year and then overrode Mayor Adams’ veto earlier this year. They argue that the legislation prohibits a practice — isolating inmates for extended periods of time — that is widely viewed as inhumane. Mayor Adams claims the city already doesn’t use solitary confinement facilities and that the council’s bill makes the prisons less safe.

Mayoral spokesman Amaris Cockfield emphasized in a statement that the city has not used solitary confinement since 2019.

“To continue to protect public health and safety in the Department of Corrections prisons, the mayor has issued a narrowly focused executive order focused on reducing violence in our prisons,” she said. “We will review the lawsuit when it is filed.”

The mayor’s emergency measures notably suspended a four-hour period for detaining detainees in “de-escalation custody” if they pose a danger to themselves or others, as well as a limit on the use of restraints on detainees during their transport.

When Adams issued the orders, he claimed they were intended to address security concerns raised by federal supervisor Steve Martin, who monitors violence at Rikers Island prisons. He also insisted that the orders would only remain in effect for 30 days, giving his administration time to find another solution.

But since Adams first issued the emergency declaration and executive actions, he has renewed them every 30 days.

Williams, the lead sponsor of the legislation, said the mayor “can’t just ignore the laws he doesn’t like.” The public advocate also took aim at Adams’ recent positive comments toward President-elect Donald Trump, which many speculate was a ploy to secure relief from his federal indictment.

“Despite his desperate power grabs, this mayor cannot simply ignore the laws he doesn’t like,” Williams said. “I am proud to work with the Speaker to ensure that the mayor cannot continue to abuse the declaration of a state of emergency to protect his ego or political goals. We cannot simply forgive or excuse this mayor’s attempt to pander to Donald Trump’s worst impulses at the expense of New Yorkers, and I call on the court to put an end to his false emergency so we can address the real crisis.”

Essentially, the filing alleges that the mayor’s emergency powers can only be used during “disasters, civil unrest, catastrophes or similar public emergencies” and that his orders did not meet that threshold.

“When Mayor Adams declared a state of emergency and suspended Local Law 42, he did not recognize an imminent emergency that required a rapid, unilateral response,” the filing states. “Because this core threshold requirement of the Executive Law has not been met, the Mayor’s emergency declaration and accompanying suspension of Municipal Law 42 are unlawful and invalid.”

The lawsuit further argues that upholding Adams’ executive orders sets a “dangerous precedent” that allows a mayor to suspend properly enacted laws simply because he disagrees with them.

“No other mayor in the city’s history has ever used these emergency powers to circumvent a local law, and a finding otherwise – that the mayor can override a majority of council members – would set a dangerous precedent,” the filing says reads. “The mayor cannot disregard a local law simply because he disagrees with the council’s thoughtful policy decisions.”