Staff Reports
Mayor Zohran Mamdani chose 18 people to sit on the Mayor’s Advisory Committee on the Judiciary this week, and New Yorkers should be paying close attention. The picks touched off a predictable uproar because the roster appears to include no Jewish members and because the administration refused to advance retired Judge John Leventhal after learning he once did paid legal work for Ghislaine Maxwell. The message from City Hall smells like politics, not even‑handed vetting.
What Mamdani announced and why people are upset
The MACJ is supposed to vet and recommend judges for New York City courts. That is a big job and it needs public trust. Jewish bar groups say they are “deeply disappointed” that no Jewish lawyers made the list. They also point out the odd choice to block Judge Leventhal because he once represented Maxwell, while other appointees have histories that make victims and families wince.
Vetting with two standards — and bad optics
Here’s the headline: representing a wealthy socialite accused in a sex‑trafficking scandal is a disqualifier. But defending Guantánamo detainees or advocating for notorious convicted killers is apparently fine. Mayor Mamdani’s chief counsel, Ramzi Kassem, made a career defending detainees and teaching law. One MACJ member, Soffiyah Elijah, has defended and agitated for high‑profile inmates who many call cop‑killers. That reads like a double standard and it looks political, not principled.
Why the difference matters
If the city will bar lawyers for taking on unpopular clients in private practice, there must be a clear, written rule. Otherwise the public will assume ideology, identity, or politics drove the choice. The committee shapes who sits on family, criminal, and civil benches. People who come before those judges — victims, accused, parents — must believe the system is fair and even‑handed, not tilted by who the mayor prefers.
What Mamdani should do next
Mayor Mamdani can fix this easily: publish the vetting criteria, explain in writing why Leventhal was stopped, and broaden the panel to include recognized leaders from the Jewish legal community. If the administration truly wants a “representative cross‑section,” that should include all faiths and viewpoints. Otherwise this will read as a political litmus test, and that is the last thing New Yorkers need at a time when trust in courts is already fragile.
