NYC Mayor's office denies religious bias in judicial selection committee

The administration of New York City Mayor Eric Adams has refuted claims of religious discrimination in the formation of the Mayor's Advisory Committee on the Judiciary. The denial comes after several Jewish legal organizations raised concerns about the absence of Jewish members on the 19-person panel tasked with selecting and recommending candidates for judgeships.

The controversy surfaced when organizations including the Brandeis Association, Jewish Lawyers Guild, Brooklyn Brandeis Society, and Queens Brandeis Association, with support from the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), sent a letter to Adams on Monday. They urged the city government to reconsider the committee's makeup, arguing it did not reflect the diversity of New York City's population. The absence of Jewish representation, they contended, contradicted the city government's stated commitment to forming a committee that broadly represents the legal community.

However, the Mayor's office maintains that the appointment process for the committee was not influenced by religious background. Joe Calvello, a spokesperson for the Mayor, told NBC New York that the assertion that the Judicial Advisory Committee appointments were based on religious considerations is "untrue."

Calvello further stated that Adams' administration has appointed numerous judges from diverse backgrounds, including Jewish judges, to various positions within New York's judicial system. He clarified that the decision not to include former Judge John Leventhal on the panel was not related to his religious identity but stemmed from the administration's knowledge of his past involvement with Ghislaine Maxwell's legal defense team.

These remarks serve as a response to criticism that emerged after the City Hall announced the formation of the new judicial advisory panel on July 22. At the time, Corporation Counsel Ramzi Kassem described the committee as "a truly representative cross-section of New York City's legal profession," emphasizing that its members hailed from various boroughs and possessed diverse professional experiences, aiming to broaden the pool of qualified judicial candidates.

“

The assertion that the Judicial Advisory Committee appointments were based on religious considerations is untrue.