THE NEWS

Authored by Kimberly Hayek via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A federal judge on Tuesday dismissed the Trump administration’s challenge to New York’s Green Light Law, upholding the state’s issuance of driver’s licenses to individuals without requiring proof of legal U.S. residency.

U.S. District Judge Anne M. Nardacci (Biden) in Albany determined that the Trump administration, which challenged the law under President Donald Trump’s enforcement of immigration laws, failed to back its claims that the state law usurps federal law or that it unlawfully regulates or unlawfully discriminates against the federal government.

The Justice Department filed the lawsuit against the state over the law in February, naming Gov. Kathy Hochul and the state’s attorney general, Letitia James, as defendants.

“As I said from the start, our laws protect the rights of all New Yorkers and keep our communities safe,” James said in a statement on Dec. 19. “I will always stand up for New Yorkers and the rule of law.”

Nardacci stated that her job was not to evaluate the desirability of the Green Light Law as a policy matter. Rather, she said in a 23-page opinion, it was to assess whether the Trump administration’s arguments established that the law violates the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, which grants federal laws precedence over state laws.

The administration, she wrote, has “failed to state such a claim.”

The Green Light Law was framed as improving public safety on the roads, as people without licenses sometimes drove without one or without having passed a road test. The state also makes it easier for holders of such licenses to get auto insurance in an attempt to minimize accidents involving uninsured drivers.

Under the law, people without a valid Social Security number can submit alternative forms of ID, such as valid passports and driver’s licenses issued in other countries. Applicants must still obtain a permit and pass a road test to qualify for a “standard driver’s license.” The program does not apply to commercial driver’s licenses.

The Justice Department’s lawsuit sought to strike down the law as “a frontal assault on the federal immigration laws, and the federal authorities that administer them.”

It noted a provision that requires the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles commissioner to notify people who are in the country illegally when a federal immigration agency has requested their information.

In 2020, during Trump’s first term, his administration sought to push New York into changing the law by preventing anyone from the state from enrolling in trusted traveler programs.

Then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo offered to restore limited federal access to driving records, but stated he would not allow immigration agents to see lists of people who applied for the special licenses available to immigrants who couldn’t prove legal residency in the country. The administration restored New Yorkers’ access to the trusted traveler program after a short-lived legal battle.

In the lawsuit thrown out Tuesday, the administration contended that it would be simpler to enforce federal immigration priorities if federal authorities had unhindered access to New York’s driver data. Nardacci, agreeing with a 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in a county clerk’s prior challenge to the law, stated that such information “remains available to federal immigration authorities” via a lawful court order or judicial warrant.

In December 2019, former ICE acting director Tom Homan, now Trump’s border Czar, called the law an “enticement” that minimizes the illegality of illegal immigration by providing benefits.

“There’s absolutely no reason to give a privilege of a driver’s license to someone who is here in violation of the law,” Homan stated.

In February 2020, a New York sheriff said the law hinders human trafficking investigations by restricting DMV data sharing with federal agents.

“So, if Border Patrol came and said, ‘Hey, we want to look through your records because we’re looking for this guy,’ I can’t share our investigation with them if it has DMV data,” Wayne County Sheriff Barry Virts said.

That same month, the Department of Homeland Security banned New Yorkers from enrolling in trusted traveler programs, with acting Secretary Chad Wolf citing the law’s barriers to DMV data access as the reason.

New York responded with a lawsuit, alleging the ban was punitive and harmed residents.

The Associated Press contributed to this report 

Authored by Melanie Sun via The Epoch Times,

A federal judge in Tennessee overseeing the criminal case involving El Salvador national and long-time Maryland resident Kilmar Abrego Garcia has canceled a trial date for the human smuggling case, pending a decision on whether to dismiss the case entirely over the defendant’s allegations of vindictive prosecution.

A trial date in the case had been set for Jan. 27, but U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw of Nashville, Tennessee, in a Dec. 23 filing ordered to change the proceedings to an evidentiary hearing for the government to make its case against the allegations at 9 a.m. on Jan. 28, 2026.

From the arguments and evidence made in the proceedings, which could span a few days, Crenshaw will determine whether the case will proceed to trial or be dismissed.

“The Court has already found that Abrego has made such a showing, entitling him to discovery and an evidentiary hearing on why the government is prosecuting him,” Crenshaw wrote in the order.

“Given this, the burden has shifted to the government to ’rebut [the presumption] ”with objective, on-the-record explanations“’ for charging Abrego.”

The indictment in Tennessee against Abrego Garcia came in May, which the defense noted was after a judge in Maryland—overseeing a separate civil case that will determine whether the government can deport the defendant—ordered his return from a prison in El Salvador to Maryland.

Abrego Garcia was indicted by a grand jury and charged with conspiracy to transport aliens and unlawful transportation of illegal aliens.

The alleged crimes happened during a 2022 traffic stop by Tennessee Highway Patrol troopers, in which he is accused of having worked with co-conspirators to knowingly smuggle illegal immigrants into the United States.

However, an immigration judge in 2019 ordered that, while Abrego Garcia had entered the United States unlawfully in 2011, the government was not allowed to deport him to El Salvador over a credible fear of persecution by gangs in his home country.

While the order did not bar his removal to safe third countries, Abrego Garcia stayed in the United States with a deportation hold for El Salvador.

Despite this hold, the Trump administration did indeed deport Abrego Garcia to El Salvador’s maximum security CECOT prison in March, which the administration later said was an “administrative error.” In April, the Supreme Court ordered the Trump administration to facilitate his return.

In its appeal, the defense argues that the government only started pursuing charges against Abrego Garcia after his deportation to El Salvador made national headlines. He pleaded not guilty in June, and in August, he rejected a plea deal to be deported to Uganda.

Abrego Garcia’s lawyers are attempting to have the case dismissed, arguing that the government is pursuing a vindictive and selective prosecution against their client for successfully fighting his removal to El Salvador in the other case.

The Department of Justice has denied the allegations and provided internal emails and an affidavit from acting U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Tennessee Robert McGuire, who said he sought the indictment based on his belief that Abrego Garcia committed a federal crime.

“I received no direction from anyone at the White House, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, or any other source on the question of whether to seek or not to seek an indictment in this case,” he said.

The Trump administration maintains that Abrego Garcia is an illegal immigrant who should face the law if found guilty of human smuggling.

Crenshaw said in a ruling on Oct. 3 that there was a “realistic likelihood that the prosecution against [Abrego Garcia] may be vindictive.” The ruling allowed for the defense to seek discovery and testimony from government officials about their decision to bring the charges.

However, Crenshaw said in the Dec. 23 order that the subpoenas requested by the defense for three high-ranking Justice Department officials—Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, acting Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General James McHenry, and Associate Deputy Attorney General Aakash Singh—will only be approved if the case is allowed to proceed to the next step.

The evidentiary hearing will focus on the government’s rebuttal of the defense’s motion to dismiss on grounds of vindictive prosecution.

The government has said it will call on testimony from Supervisory Special Agent John VanWie of Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) Baltimore, Special Agent Rana Saoud of HSI Nashville, and perhaps McGuire in the hearing.

In the Maryland case, the government continues pursuing the deportation of Abrego Garcia, now to Liberia.

Maryland Federal Judge Paula Xinis is overseeing that case. Xinis has expressed concern that the country to which Abrego Garcia is deported could eventually send him back to El Salvador. He has requested to be deported to Costa Rica, but the Trump administration is pursuing deportation to a list of countries in Africa.

“If the government were to say today, we’re going to remove Mr. Abrego Garcia to Costa Rica,” a defense attorney told a court on Dec. 22, his client is prepared to go “as soon as this afternoon.”

Abrego Garcia remains out on bond in Maryland with his family after being released from the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, due to a temporary restraining order that prevents him from being taken into custody while Xinis considers the case.