A federal judge on Tuesday rejected the Trump administration\u2019s bid to block New York\u2019s so-called Green Light Law, which allows the state to issue driver\u2019s licenses to people without requiring proof that they\u2019re in the country legally.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
U.S. District Judge Anne Nardacci in Albany ruled that the Trump administration failed to support its claims that certain provisions of the state law are preempted by federal law, impermissibly regulate the federal government, or impermissibly discriminate against the federal government.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a lawsuit in February, challenging the constitutionality of the state law, saying it violates the Constitution\u2019s Supremacy Clause, which states federal laws take precedence over state laws, and asking the court to block enforcement of the statute.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The lawsuit named the state of New York, as well as its governor, Kathy Hochul\u2002<\/u><\/a>(D), and its attorney general, Letitia James\u2002<\/u><\/a>(D), as defendants.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The DOJ, in the lawsuit, challenged three specific provisions of the law, including one that prevented the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) from disclosing an applicant\u2019s records or information to \u201cany agency that primarily enforces immigration law or to any employee or agent of such agency\u201d without a court order or warrant.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Another provision required anyone with access to DMV records to certify they wouldn\u2019t disclose the information. And the contested provision required the DMV to inform an applicant within three days of getting requests for information or records from federal immigration authorities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Nardacci acknowledged that the lawsuit touches on the politically salient issue of immigration enforcement, but she stressed in the ruling that her job is not to evaluate the policy itself, just whether the plaintiffs successfully proved it violates the Supremacy Clause.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe Court\u2019s role is not to evaluate the desirability of the Green Light Law as a policy matter, but rather to assess whether Plaintiff\u2019s well-pled allegations, accepted as true, establish that the challenged provisions of the Green Light Law violate the Constitution\u2019s Supremacy Clause,\u201d she wrote.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to state such a claim,\u201d she added.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The law was initially enacted as part of an effort to improve public safety, since people without licenses would sometimes drive without taking a road test first.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Hill has reached out to the DOJ for comment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n