Judge Rules On DOJ Challenge To NY’s ‘Green Light Law’
A federal judge has dealt a setback to the Trump administration’s efforts to challenge New York’s controversial “Green Light Law,” a measure that allows individuals to obtain driver’s licenses without proof of legal immigration status—while restricting federal access to those records.
U.S. District Judge Anne Nardacci ruled in Albany that the administration failed to demonstrate that the law violates the Constitution or improperly interferes with federal authority. Her decision marks a significant moment in the ongoing clash between state-level immigration policies and federal enforcement priorities under Donald J. Trump.
The legal battle began in February, when the U.S. Department of Justice filed suit against the state of New York, along with Democratic Governor Kathy Hochul and Attorney General Letitia James. The DOJ argued that the law violates the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause by obstructing federal immigration enforcement and prioritizing state policy over national law.
At the center of the dispute are several provisions that limit cooperation between New York’s Department of Motor Vehicles and federal immigration authorities. One section prohibits the DMV from sharing personal data with agencies that primarily enforce immigration law without a warrant or court order. Another requires individuals with access to DMV records to certify they will not disclose such information. A third mandates that individuals be notified within three days if federal authorities request their records.
Judge Nardacci acknowledged the politically charged nature of the issue but emphasized that her role was limited to constitutional analysis—not policy preference.
“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.
Despite the ruling, critics of the law—including officials within the Trump administration—argue that it undermines law enforcement and puts officers at risk. When the lawsuit was first announced, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi accused New York leaders of putting “illegal aliens over American citizens,” pointing to restrictions that prevent federal officers from accessing critical driver and criminal history data during routine encounters.
The DOJ’s filing described the law as “a frontal assault on the federal immigration laws, and the federal authorities that administer them,” particularly highlighting provisions that require the state to alert individuals when federal agencies seek their information.
Supporters of stronger immigration enforcement argue that such limitations create dangerous blind spots. Following a deadly incident earlier this year involving a U.S. Customs and Border Protection agent during a traffic stop near the northern border, critics renewed calls to revisit policies like the Green Light Law.
Hector Garza, vice president of the National Border Patrol Council, warned that restricting access to vehicle and driver data can put officers in harm’s way.
“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,” Garza said.
“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,” he 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.”
Originally enacted in 2019, the Green Light Law has long been a flashpoint in debates over immigration, state sovereignty, and public safety. While the court’s ruling allows the law to remain in effect for now, the broader legal and political fight is far from over—especially as the Trump administration continues to prioritize stronger border enforcement and cooperation between federal and local authorities.