Judge Rejects Trump Admin Challenge To New York’s ‘Green Light Law’
A federal judge has rejected the Trump administration’s legal challenge to New York’s controversial “Green Light Law,” a statute that allows the state to issue driver’s licenses to individuals who cannot prove they are legally present in the United States.
U.S. District Judge Anne Nardacci, based in Albany, ruled that the Trump administration failed to sufficiently demonstrate that key provisions of the law are preempted by federal authority, unlawfully commandeer federal resources, or improperly discriminate against the federal government.
The Department of Justice filed the lawsuit in February, arguing that New York’s law violates the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, which establishes that federal law takes precedence over state law. The administration sought an injunction to block enforcement of the statute, contending that it interferes with federal immigration enforcement.
The state of New York, Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul, and Democratic Attorney General Letitia James were all named as defendants in the suit.
Federal officials specifically challenged three provisions of the law. One provision prohibits the New York Department of Motor Vehicles from sharing personal records with “any agency that primarily enforces immigration law or to any employee or agent of such agency” unless a court order or warrant is presented.
Another provision requires anyone granted access to DMV records to formally certify that they will not disclose the information. A third mandates that the DMV notify an individual within three days if federal immigration authorities request their records or personal data.
In her decision, Nardacci acknowledged the highly charged political nature of immigration enforcement but emphasized that her role was limited to evaluating the constitutional claims before the court.
“The Court’s role is not to evaluate the desirability of the Green Light Law as a policy matter, but rather to assess whether Plaintiff’s well-pled allegations, accepted as true, establish that the challenged provisions of the Green Light Law violate the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause,” she wrote.
“The Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to state such a claim,” she added.
When the lawsuit was initially filed, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi sharply criticized state leaders, accusing Hochul and James of prioritizing “illegal aliens over American citizens.” The administration argued that the law prevents federal immigration officers from accessing criminal driving histories during routine traffic stops, creating public safety risks.
The DOJ described the statute as “a frontal assault on the federal immigration laws, and the federal authorities that administer them,” pointing to provisions that require state officials to warn individuals who are unlawfully present in the country when federal immigration agencies seek their information.
The lawsuit further argued that President Donald Trump’s immigration enforcement agenda would be more effective if federal authorities had consistent access to New York’s driver records, rather than being blocked by state-imposed barriers.
Although the Green Light Law has been in effect since 2019, renewed scrutiny followed the January killing of a U.S. Customs and Border Protection agent during a traffic stop involving a German national near the U.S.-Canada border in Vermont.
“Any information that can help law enforcement stay safe as they conduct their duties has pretty much been taken away with this Green Light Law,” Hector Garza, vice president of the National Border Patrol Council, told Fox News at the time.
“What [the Green Light Law] does, is that it prevents law enforcement agents from getting any type of information in regards to any registrations that the state has,” Garza added. “For example, before we engage in traffic stops, typically law enforcement will always conduct a vehicle registration check to see if there’s any warrants to see if that person is considered armed and dangerous.”
Despite the ruling, the decision is expected to intensify debate over state resistance to federal immigration enforcement and the growing divide between blue-state policies and the Trump administration’s push for stronger border security and public safety.