How Hochul Would Go About Removing Adams

ALBANY, New York — All eyes are now on Gov. Kathy Hochul as she weighs whether to remove New York City Mayor Eric Adams from office in the wake of the indictment against him, the Justice Department moving to drop those charges and Adams’ subsequent steps to collaborate with the Trump administration on migrant policy.

The governor has significant powers to remove local officials. But governors have rarely employed those powers in modern history. None have launched removal proceedings since Gov. Malcolm Wilson did after Schoharie County Sheriff John Goldswer forced inmates to work on a construction project at his house in 1974; no official has actually been removed since a series of investigations into Tammany Hall in 1932.

There’s little modern precedent for how an ouster of Adams would work in practice. But removals from the early 20th century provide a guide for what it might wind up looking like.

Where are the governor’s powers?

The state constitution and state law contain a few brief sections mentioning the governor’s powers to remove local officials. The most important language as it relates to the Adams situation comes from the New York City Charter: “The mayor may be removed from office by the governor upon charges and after service upon him of a copy of the charges and an opportunity to be heard in his defense. Pending the preparation and disposition of charges, the governor may suspend the mayor for a period not exceeding thirty days.”

What are the rules for removing a mayor?

The governor’s power to remove an official like a New York City mayor is theoretically limitless.

State Supreme Court Justice Ellis Staley wrote in his ruling on a 1932 case challenging the extent of the removal powers that Franklin Roosevelt, “as Governor of the state, is immune from interference by judicial process and free from judicial control in his performance of executive powers.”

“Courts have no power over his person and they cannot commit him for a disobedience of judicial process. For errors, if any, of law or of fact in the proceeding now pending before him, he is responsible, not to the courts, but to the people, and to his own conscience.”

That being said, Staley detailed how the process should work. The mayor has a right to argue his defense, and he should be allowed to cross-examine any witnesses testifying against him under oath.

There is also “no limitation on the nature of the act for which the mayor may be removed.” But it was clear that the removal powers were intended only for a mayoral action that “amounts to official misconduct or violation of public trust, or one that involves moral turpitude.” Staley said the only misdeeds that should be considered are those that happened under their current term — thus, alleged dealings with Turkish nationals that happened when Adams served as borough president wouldn’t be considered during a removal proceeding against him.

Staley wrote nearly a century ago, his decision was never appealed and the exact wording of some of the relevant statutory provisions has changed since then. Either Hochul or Adams could argue his conclusions aren’t relevant.

But Hochul has been clear she wants to avoid disruption as much as possible. It’s therefore likely she would stick to ground rules similar to those Staley laid out.

How does this work in practice?

The best comparison to the Hochul-Adams situation was the one that prompted Staley’s decision.

Roosevelt, just two months away from being elected president, was forced to deal with the stigma of corruption in his home state’s Democratic Party. Mayor Jimmy Walker had been accused of misdeeds such as awarding city contracts to people who were paying him.

The governor conducted the trial himself. He served as judge, jury and prosecutor. Roosevelt swore in witnesses andquestioned them about the minutiae of records, all while weighing a decision that was his alone to make.

With his ultimate fate becoming clear after two weeks of testimony in the Capitol’s Red Room, Walker resigned and fled to Italy.

How often has this actually been used?

The governor’s power to remove a mayor — and connected powers over officials like sheriffs and district attorneys that are laid out in the state constitution — have been utilized a handful of times but not recently.

At least three borough presidents were ousted in the early 20th century. The same year as the Walker case, Roosevelt removed Manhattan Sheriff Thomas “Tin Box” Farley — who earned his nickname by claiming the $361,000 deposit he made while earning a $15,000 salary was money contained in a box that he luckily stumbled upon.

Since then, however, those powers have mostly been used as a threat against local officials. Oneida County elections officials departed after then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo eyed their removal following widespread problems in the 2020 race won by Rep. Claudia Tenney. Gov. Mario Cuomo used it as a cudgel to force Yonkers council members to stop blocking a housing desegregation plan.

And Andrew Cuomo liked to remind Mayor Bill de Blasio that he could oust him if he wished.

“Technically the governor could remove a mayor,” Cuomo noted as he expressed his discontent with the mayor’s handling of protests in 2020.

Would this lead to a special election?

Political observers have highlighted March 27 as a key date when considering Adams’ potential departure. If Adams was out of office before then, the city’s charter requires a special election within 90 days to replace him. That could provide a big boost in the late June Democratic primary to whichever candidate can win a race in which New Yorkers of all political parties can participate.

But Hochul would have a bit of flexibility to avoid that scenario. She could suspend Adams for 30 days before removing him. It’s thus plausible that she could announce on Feb. 25 that the mayor is temporarily stripped of power until hearings commence in mid-March, then wait to remove him until shortly after midnight on March 27.