New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani has assembled an 18-member Advisory Committee on the Judiciary with zero Jewish members. This panel screens and recommends candidates for judgeships in the city Criminal Court, Family Court, and interim Civil Court positions. The mayor and his aides described the group as a truly representative cross-section of New York legal profession and a reflection of the cosmopolitan population of the city. Yet in a city that is home to the largest Jewish population in the United States and where Jewish attorneys make up an estimated 35 to 50 percent of the legal profession, not a single Jewish lawyer, former judge, or legal professional sits on the committee.
Jewish bar associations reacted with deep disappointment. Leaders of the Brandeis Association of Queens, the New York County Jewish Lawyers Guild, the Brooklyn Brandeis Society, and the Bronx County Jewish Bar Association sent a formal letter to the mayor. They stated that excluding Jewish representation is neither reflective nor inclusive. They warned that the omission follows a troubling pattern that has left many Jewish New Yorkers feeling increasingly marginalized. The letter called on the mayor to correct the exclusion and reaffirm that Jewish New Yorkers deserve the same representation, respect, and protection as every other community.
This is not a minor staffing decision. It is a glaring signal about priorities, power, and the selective application of diversity in progressive New York.
The Numbers Do Not Lie
Jews constitute roughly one in ten residents of New York City. In the legal profession the share is dramatically higher. Independent estimates place Jewish lawyers at between 35 and 50 percent of the city bar. The statistical probability of randomly selecting 18 New York attorneys and ending up with zero Jewish members is vanishingly small. One calculation circulating among legal observers put the odds at roughly one in 47,000. The absence cannot be dismissed as coincidence.
Previous administrations of both parties included Jewish members on the same advisory body. Jewish lawyers have long played outsized roles in New York courts, firms, and public service. Their exclusion under the current mayor stands out precisely because it breaks with that established pattern. City Hall responded by denying any religious motivation. Spokesmen noted that the mayor has appointed or reappointed Jewish judges to the bench and insisted that religion was never discussed during the selection process. They also pointed to the rejection of at least one Jewish nominee, retired Appellate Division Justice John Leventhal, citing his prior work on the legal team of Ghislaine Maxwell. That explanation does not address the complete absence of any other Jewish candidates from the final slate.
Diversity For Some, Exclusion For Others
Progressive politicians and activists have spent years demanding proportional representation and demographic reflection in every institution. They celebrate racial, ethnic, and gender balance as essential to legitimacy. Yet when the community in question is Jewish, the same standards evaporate. The mayor executive order establishing the committee explicitly stated that membership shall reflect the cosmopolitan population of the City of New York. His chief counsel called the appointees a truly representative cross-section. Those claims collapse under the simplest scrutiny.
The panel does include strong representation from other groups. It features Black, Latino, Asian, and white members drawn from public defense, prosecution, academia, and private practice. The chair is Ali Najmi, a Pakistani-American attorney and co-founder of the Muslim Democratic Club of New York. The composition is diverse by certain metrics. It is not diverse by the metric that would include the community that has contributed most heavily to the New York legal profession for generations.
This selective diversity is not neutral. It occurs against a backdrop of rising antisemitism in the city, public criticism of Israel by the mayor, and a sense among many Jewish residents that their concerns are secondary. Hate crime cases, including those targeting Jews, are heard in the very courts this panel helps staff. The absence of Jewish voices in the screening process is therefore not abstract. It has practical consequences for how justice is administered.
A Pattern Of Marginalization
Jewish organizations have noted that the panel decision fits a broader pattern. The same administration has drawn criticism for other symbolic and substantive choices that leave Jewish New Yorkers feeling sidelined. In a city still reeling from post-October 7 antisemitic incidents, campus hostility, and street-level harassment, the optics of a Judenrein judicial advisory panel are toxic. The message received by many is that Jews are overrepresented when it suits a narrative of privilege and underrepresented when power is actually allocated.
Conservative observers see a deeper problem. Identity politics always elevates some groups while diminishing others. Once government begins selecting by group identity rather than individual merit and broad community confidence, exclusion becomes inevitable. The groups currently favored can change with political fashion. The principle of equal treatment under the law does not. New York once understood that principle. The current approach abandons it in favor of curated representation that happens to omit the community most associated with the legal profession itself.
From a patriotic American perspective, this matters beyond New York. The United States was founded on the idea that individuals are judged by character and competence, not by ancestry or religious affiliation. Courts must command the confidence of all citizens. When the process that selects judges appears to write an entire community out of the picture, public trust erodes. That erosion harms the rule of law for everyone.
The Response From City Hall Falls Short
Mayor Mamdani has insisted he did not inquire about the religion of nominees. He has highlighted Jewish judges already serving on the bench. Those points do not resolve the core issue. An 18-member panel that screens future judges can and should include Jewish legal professionals. The talent pool is deep. The history of Jewish service on this very committee is long. Choosing zero members from that pool while claiming to reflect the city is not credible.
The rejection of Justice Leventhal over past client work raises further questions. Attorneys routinely represent unpopular clients. That is a feature of the adversarial system, not a disqualification. Applying that standard selectively while seating other members with controversial associations only sharpens the perception of double standards.
What Accountability Looks Like
Jewish bar associations have asked the mayor to correct the exclusion. That request is reasonable. Adding qualified Jewish members would not require discarding existing appointees. It would simply fulfill the stated goal of reflection and representation. More importantly, it would demonstrate that Jewish New Yorkers are not afterthoughts in the administration of justice.
New Yorkers of every background should demand better. Courts derive legitimacy from the perception of fairness. A screening panel that systematically excludes one of the most significant communities in the legal profession undermines that perception. The American tradition of equal justice under law cannot survive if certain groups are quietly written out of the institutions that administer it.
The numbers are simple and damning. Eighteen seats. Zero Jews. In the city with the largest Jewish population in the country and a legal profession in which Jews have long excelled, that outcome is not diversity. It is exclusion. It is a choice. And it is one that should be reversed.
Featured image credit: DepositPhotos.com
