Buckle up, folks—a federal judge just slammed the brakes on the Trump administration’s attempt to halt New York’s controversial Green Light Law, as The Hill reports.

In a ruling that’s sure to spark debate, U.S. District Judge Anne Nardacci in Albany rejected the administration’s bid to block a state statute allowing driver’s licenses to be issued without proof of legal immigration status.

This saga kicked off when New York enacted the Green Light Law, a policy aimed at boosting public safety by encouraging more drivers to get tested and licensed, regardless of their immigration standing.

Judge Rejects Constitutional Challenge to Law

The Department of Justice fired back in February, filing a lawsuit against the state, Gov. Kathy Hochul, and Attorney General Letitia James, all Democrats, claiming the law overstepped federal authority.

The DOJ argued the law violated the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, targeting three specific provisions that limit how the Department of Motor Vehicles shares data with immigration enforcement.

One rule blocks DMV data from reaching federal immigration agencies without a court order, while others mandate confidentiality certifications and quick notifications to applicants if their records are requested.

DOJ Fails to Prove Legal Violation

Judge Nardacci wasn’t buying the DOJ’s case, ruling that the administration couldn’t prove the law improperly interferes with federal powers or discriminates against them.

As she put it, “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,” wrote Judge Nardacci.

She added, “The Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to state such a claim.” And there you have it—legal analysis over political preference, though one wonders if this sets a risky precedent for state overreach.

Green Light Law Sparks Policy Debate

Let’s be clear: this law isn’t just about driving—it’s a lightning rod in the broader clash over immigration policy and state versus federal control.

Supporters argue it’s a pragmatic move for safer roads, but critics see it as another step in a progressive agenda that undermines federal immigration enforcement with a wink and a nod.

Judge Nardacci herself noted the charged political context, yet stuck to the narrow lane of constitutional review rather than wading into the policy swamp.

Ruling Leaves Questions for Future Enforcement

While the ruling is a win for New York’s leadership, it doesn’t settle the deeper tension between state autonomy and federal oversight on hot-button issues like immigration.

For conservatives, this feels like a missed chance to rein in policies that seem to prioritize political messaging over national cohesion, though the court’s focus on legal merits deserves respect.

So, as the dust settles, the Green Light Law rolls on—for better or worse, depending on where you stand on this divisive road. New York drivers may feel safer, but the federal-state tug-of-war is far from over.