BRETT A.

SHUMATE
Acting Assistant Attorney General
Civil Division

DREW C. ENSIGN
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
AUGUST FLENTJE
Deputy Director
EREZ REUVENI
Assistant Director
Office of Immigration Litigation

ERIC HAMILTON
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
ALEXANDER K. HAAS
Director
JACQUELINE COLEMAN SNEAD
Assistant Director
CRISTEN C. HANDLEY
ELISABETH J. NEYLAN
Trial Attorneys
Federal Programs Branch

Attorneys for the United States

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v.
STATE OF NEW YORK; KATHLEEN
HOCHUL, Governor of New York, in her COMPLAINT
Official Capacity; LETITIA A. JAMES,
Attorney General of New York, in her
Official Capacity; MARK J.F.
SCHROEDER, Commissioner of the New
York State Department of Motor Vehicles,
in his Official Capacity.
Defendants.

1
 INTRODUCTION

1. The United States is currently facing a crisis of illegal immigration. See, e.g.,

Proclamation 10,866, Declaring a National Emergency at the Southern Border of the United

States, 90 Fed. Reg. 8327 (Jan. 20, 2025). And the Federal Government is set to put a stop to it.

While States are welcome partners in that effort, it is their prerogative as separate sovereigns to

refrain. But a State’s freedom to stand aside is not a freedom to stand in the way. And where

inaction crosses into obstruction, a State breaks the law. The State of New York is doing just that.

It must be stopped.

2. In 2019, New York amended its Vehicle and Traffic Law to include a provision

known as the “Green Light Law.” See N.Y. Veh. & Traf. § 201.12. The Green Light Law generally

bars the sharing of New York State Department of Motor Vehicles (“DMV”) records or information

(e.g., addresses, vehicle registrations, identification photos) with federal immigration agencies.

See id. § 201.12(a). And it requires New York’s DMV Commissioner to promptly tip off any illegal

alien when a federal immigration agency has requested his or her information. See § 201.12(b).

As its supporters and sponsors made clear, the Green Light Law was passed to directly impair the

enforcement of the federal immigration laws in New York. And those lawmakers have achieved

their objective.

3. DMV information is critical to federal immigration agencies—in particular their

ability to identify and remove those who are here illegally. As important, DMV information is

critical to keeping federal immigration officers safe. From vehicle stops to border crossings to

executing arrests and searches, immigration authorities depend on these records to assess real-time

the situations they face and the people they encounter. But New York’s Green Light Law deprives

2
them of this insight; and in turn, unnecessarily forces brave law enforcement officers into

dangerous and uncertain circumstances.

4. For some, like Attorney General Letitia James, these are all the markings of a “well

crafted”1 law designed to ensure that “information of undocumented immigrants . . . will be

protected” from federal immigration authorities.2 But the Constitution sees things differently.

New York’s Green Light Law violates the Supremacy Clause at every turn.

5. Foremost, federal immigration law expressly preempts state and local laws that

restrict sharing information with the Federal Government “regarding the immigration status . . . of

any individual.” See 8 U.S.C. § 1373(a). But that is exactly what the Green Light Law does.

6. Moreover, under conflict preemption principles, a State cannot fashion “an obstacle

to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives” of the federal

immigration laws. Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 399 (2012) (quoting Hines v.

Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 67 (1941)). But again, that is the entire point behind the Green Light

Law—impeding the Federal Government’s ability to learn and share valuable information to

remove illegal aliens.

7. Further, well-established principles of intergovernmental immunity prohibit a State

from directly regulating or discriminating against the Federal Government. Yet here too, the Green

Light Law does so on its face. The Law directly regulates the Federal Government’s own

operations: Even in the narrow circumstances where one part of the Government is given access

1
See Office of the New York State Attorney General, Attorney General James’ Statement on Green
Light Bill (June 17, 2019), https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2019/attorney-general-james-statement-
green-light-bill.
2
See Spectrum News, New York AG James Committed to Defending Green Light Bill (Aug. 5,
2019), https://spectrumlocalnews.com/nys/central-ny/politics/2019/08/05/letitia-james-interview-
green-light-bill.
3
to New York DMV material, it is still criminally barred from sharing it with federal immigration

components. Relatedly, the Law singles out federal immigration agencies for adverse treatment—

the exact discrimination the Constitution forbids.

8. By intent and design, the Green Light Law is a frontal assault on the federal

immigration laws, and the federal authorities that administer them. More than that, the Law has

had dangerous consequences—precisely because it has worked as intended. But federal law does

not tolerate this sort of obstruction. Nor does the Constitution. New York’s Green Light Law

cannot stand.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

9. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1345.

10. Venue is proper in this jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), because at least one

Defendant resides in this District and a substantial part of the acts or omissions giving rise to this

action arose from events in this District.

11. This Court has authority to provide the relief requested under its inherent equitable

powers, as well as the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202.

PARTIES

12. Plaintiff is the United States of America. It regulates immigration under its

statutory and constitutional authorities. It is responsible for enforcing the federal immigration laws

through its agencies—including the Departments of Justice, State, Labor, and Homeland Security

(“DHS”), along with DHS’s component agencies, including U.S. Immigration and Customs

Enforcement (“ICE”) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”).

13. Defendant New York is a State of the United States.

14. Defendant Kathleen Hochul is the Governor of New York.

4
 15. Defendant Letitia A. James is the Attorney General of New York.

16. Defendant Mark J.F. Schroeder is the Commissioner of the New York State

Department of Motor Vehicles.

17. All individual Defendants are being sued only in their official capacities.

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY BACKGROUND

Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof . . . shall

be the supreme Law of the Land . . . any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the

Contrary notwithstanding.” U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2.

19. “The Government of the United States has broad, undoubted power over the subject

of immigration and the status of aliens.” Arizona, 567 U.S. at 394. This authority stems from “the

National Government’s constitutional power to ‘establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,’ and

its inherent power as sovereign to control and conduct relations with foreign nations.” Id. (citations

omitted).

20. Accordingly, “Congress [has] the right, as it may see fit, to expel aliens of a

particular class, or to permit them to remain,” and “has undoubtedly the right . . . to take all proper

means to carry out the system which it provides.” Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698,

714 (1893); see, e.g., Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580, 588–89 (1952) (the United States

has the “exclusive[]” control over “any policy toward aliens”).

21. Exercising this function, the Federal Government has devised an “extensive and

complex” statutory scheme for the “governance of immigration and alien status.” Arizona, 567

U.S. at 395. This scheme codifies the Executive’s authority to inspect, investigate, arrest, detain,

and remove aliens who are suspected of being, or are found to be, unlawfully in the United States.

E.g., 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1228, 1231.

United States and the procedures for doing so.” Arizona, 567 U.S. at 396. Indeed, New York itself

put it well: “The removal of undocumented immigrants is [an] exclusively federal function,” and

the Federal Government alone decides “not only who may be removed from the United States, but

how such individuals should be identified, apprehended, and detained.” Amici Br. of New York et

al. at 3, Arizona v. United States, No. 11-182, 2012 WL 1054493 (U.S. Mar. 26, 2012).

23. Nonetheless, “[c]onsultation between federal and state officials is an important

feature of the immigration system.” Arizona, 567 U.S. at 411. “Absent any cooperation at all from

local officials,” the immigration system—like other federal programs—“may fail or fall short of

[its] goals[.]” New York v. United States, 179 F.3d 29, 35 (2d Cir. 1999).

24. The immigration laws thus provide for basic principles of cooperation between state

and local governments and the Federal Government. For instance, federal authorities must “make

available” to state and local authorities “investigative resources . . . to determine whether

individuals arrested by such authorities for aggravated felonies are aliens[.]” 8 U.S.C. §

1226(d)(1)(A). Likewise, federal officials must also “designate and train officers and employees

. . . to serve as a liaison to” state and local officials “with respect to the arrest, conviction, and

release of any alien charged with an aggravated felony[.]” Id. § 1226(d)(1)(B); see id. §§ 1226(c),

1231(a). And state and local officials may “cooperate with the [Federal Government] in the

identification, apprehension, detention, or removal of aliens not lawfully present in the United

States.” Id. § 1357(g)(10)(B).

25. Naturally, information-sharing across (and within) governments is integral to this

system functioning. Section 1373 thus requires federal officials to “respond to an inquiry” by state

or local officials “seeking to verify or ascertain the citizenship or immigration status of any

6
individual within the[ir] jurisdiction.” Id. § 1373(c); see 6 U.S.C. § 482(b) (requiring information-

sharing among federal agencies). By the same token, state and local government officials “may

not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving

from, [federal immigration authorities] information regarding the citizenship or immigration

status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.” 8 U.S.C. § 1373(a); see id. §§ 1373(b), 1644

(similar).

26. Critically, Congress passed the latter provision to fix a specific problem, after it

observed “certain states and localities were restricting their officials’ cooperation with federal

immigration authorities.” New York v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 951 F.3d 84, 96 (2d Cir. 2020); see

New York, 179 F.3d at 35. Thus, in enacting Section 1373, “Congress sought to give state and local

officials the authority to communicate with [federal immigration authorities] regarding the

presence, whereabouts, or activities of illegal aliens, notwithstanding any local laws to the

contrary.” New York, 951 F.3d at 97 (citations omitted).

27. In short, under federal immigration laws—and our system of government—state

and local governments do not have “an untrammeled right to forbid all voluntary cooperation by

[their] officials” with federal immigration authorities. New York, 179 F.3d at 35. Indeed, Congress

has affirmatively outlawed any effort to “conceal, harbor, or shield from detection” any “alien in

any place[.]” 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii).

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

28. In 2019, New York added Section 201.12 to its Vehicle and Traffic Law (herein, its

“Green Light Law”). It also created a system by which illegal aliens could obtain standard, not-

for-federal purposes, non-commercial driver’s licenses or permits.

29. As amended in 2020, the Green Light Law has three main provisions.

7
 30. First, the Green Light Law prohibits the Commissioner of the New York DMV—

as well as his agents or employees—from sharing any DMV “records or information” with “any

agency that primarily enforces immigration law or to any employee or agent of such agency,”

absent a federal court order or judicial warrant. N.Y. Veh. & Traf. § 201.12(a). The Law states

that such agencies “shall include, but not be limited to” ICE and CBP, thereby leaving the

determination of which other agencies “primarily enforce[] immigration law” wholly to the

discretion of the DMV Commissioner. Id. § 201.12(c).

31. The DMV “records or information” covered by this provision include a person’s

“photo image, . . . social security number, telephone number, place of birth, country of origin, place

of employment, school or educational institution attended, source of income, status as a recipient

of public benefits, the customer identification number associated with a public utilities account,

[and] medical information or disability information[.]” Id. § 201.8.

32. Second, the Green Light Law includes a tip-off provision, wherein the DMV

Commissioner “shall”—within three days of receiving a request for “records or information from

an agency that primarily enforces immigration law”—“notify the individual about whom such

information was requested, informing such individual of the request and the identity of the agency

that made such request.” Id. § 201.12(a).

33. Third, the Green Light Law imposes strict limitations on those who have access to

or receive “records or information” from the New York DMV. Id. § 201.12(b). One must “certify”

to the Commissioner that he or she will not “use such records or information for civil immigration

purposes” or “disclose such records or information to any agency that primarily enforces

immigration law or to any employee or agent of any such agency” (unless there is a cooperative

agreement that does not involve enforcement of immigration law). Id. The Law also requires that

8
“any person or entity certifying pursuant to this paragraph shall keep for a period of five years

records of all uses and identifying each person or entity that primarily enforces immigration law

that received department records or information from such certifying person or entity”—plus make

those records available for inspection by the DMV Commissioner upon request. Id. Violations of

these certification and record-keeping requirements are subject to a Class E felony penalty, with

punishments of up to four years in prison and $5,000 in fines. Id.; N.Y. Penal Code §§ 70.00(2)(e),

80.00(1)(a).

34. The Green Light law contains narrow exceptions, allowing DMV records or

information to be given to federal immigration agencies “as required for the commissioner to issue

or renew a driver’s license or learner’s permit that meets federal standards for identification, as

necessary for an individual seeking acceptance into a trusted traveler program, or to facilitate

vehicle imports and/or exports[.]” N.Y. Veh. & Traf. § 201.12(a). But even where one of these

exceptions applies, the Law’s tip-off provision, and the provision prohibiting the use of such

information for civil immigration purposes and the sharing of such information to another agency

that primarily enforces immigration law, still apply. For instance, if CBP were to receive New

York DMV material in order to process an application under the trusted traveler program, CBP

would nonetheless be restricted—again, on penalty of felony—from sharing that material with ICE

because ICE works to primarily enforce immigration law. See id. § 201.12(b).

35. The sponsors and supporters of the Green Light Law were candid about its

objective. The Law was designed to “secure driving privileges” for “undocumented immigrants,”

while “protect[ing]” them from federal law enforcement.3 As Assembly Member Catalina Cruz

3
See New York State Senate, S1747B, 2019–2020 Regular Sess. (N.Y. 2019),
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2019/S1747?intent=support.
9
put it: “We passed a strong, comprehensive bill that not only permits undocumented individuals in

the state to obtain driver’s licenses, but also protects their personal data from the federal

government.”4 Or in the words of its sponsor, Senator Luis Sepúlveda: The Law allows illegal

aliens to “move freely” throughout New York “without fear” that federal law will be enforced

against them.5

New York’s Green Light to Illegal Immigration

36. New York’s Green Light Law has worked exactly as designed—it has materially

impeded the Federal Government’s ability to enforce the federal immigration laws.

37. The Green Light Law keeps critical information from the Federal Government—

like driver’s license information, vehicle registration information, and photographs—which

federal officers need to effectively perform mission-critical law enforcement operations.

38. DMV information (e.g., one’s home and work address) is relevant to the following

sorts of immigration-status determinations: (1) whether an alien admitted in a particular

nonimmigrant status (e.g., B-1 business visitor) has stayed in the United States beyond his or her

authorized period of admission, evidenced an intent not to abandon his or her foreign residence,

or otherwise violated the conditions of such admission (e.g., engaged in unauthorized

employment), 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(C); (2) whether the alien has been granted work authorization

as a benefit attached to a particular status or form of relief, 8 C.F.R. 274a.12; (3) whether the alien

has kept DHS informed of any change of address as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1305; and (4) whether

an alien has accrued the necessary continuous presence to be eligible for removal relief, id. §§

4
See New York Immigration Coalition, All New Yorkers Will Have a Green Light to Drive
Beginning December 16 (Dec. 9, 2019), https://www.nyic.org/2019/12/all-new-yorkers-will-have-
a-green-light-to-drive-beginning-december-16/.
5
See CNN, New York Passes Bill to Allow Driver’s Licenses for Undocumented Immigrants (June
17, 2019), https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/17/us/new-york-green-light-bill/index.html.
10
1229b(a)(1), (a)(2), (b)(1)(A). The Green Light Law works to impair federal immigration officials’

access to this information.

39. The Green Light Law also impedes the Federal Government’s ability to arrest and

remove illegal aliens, thereby threatening the safety of Americans, including those in New York.

For example, ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations (“ERO”) component is responsible for

arresting and removing certain illegal aliens. In discharging these duties, ERO officers arrest tens

of thousands of illegal aliens who have been accused of, charged with, or convicted of committing

serious criminal offenses—such as homicide, sexual assault, kidnapping, robberies, and other

crimes. And as with other law enforcement operations, being able to access DMV records—

whether as part of a traffic stop, surveillance operation, or in executing a warrant—is indispensable

for this work, because it is often one of the best sources of real-time information about a target or

his associates. DMV data also are used to determine the whereabouts and presence of an

enforcement target in a particular state. The Law shuts out, however, federal immigration

authorities from this oft-needed information, thereby compromising their ability to do their jobs

and to keep Americans safe.

40. Moreover, the Green Light Law directly threatens the safety of federal immigration

officials themselves. Namely, the Law prevents CBP and ICE officers (along with officers of any

other federal agency that the DMV Commissioner decides “primarily enforces immigration law”)

from getting essential information real-time on individuals they are about to encounter. For

instance, when CBP officers at land ports of entry in New York encounter an individual, the Law

restricts their visibility into that person’s background, to determine whether safety concerns merit

further inspection or precautions. Or when U.S. Border Patrol agents stop a New York-licensed

vehicle near the border, they lack access to information that could provide valuable insight into

11
whom they are stopping, and whether the car has been involved in illicit or suspicious activity. Or

when an ICE ERO officer does the same—or runs a check on New York-licensed vehicles outside

a residence or place of business, before executing a warrant—he or she too is no longer able to

check the license plate to determine the vehicle’s owner, which could reveal the owner has a

criminal record or has been flagged as dangerous. In each scenario, the fundamental problem

remains the same—New York’s Green Light Law is putting at risk the lives of those on the front

lines of federal immigration enforcement.

41. Finally, the Green Light Law also impairs the Federal Government’s broader law

enforcement capacity. Because of the Law’s certification requirement, the Federal Government is

unable to share information across all its law enforcement agencies unimpeded. This poses a

serious problem for deconfliction efforts among law enforcement agencies, who need to be able to

freely communicate to ensure that one operation does not undercut another. The Government uses

state DMV information daily to identify, locate, and arrest individuals as part of ongoing

investigations into narcotics smuggling, child exploitation, human trafficking, trans-national

gangs, national security, identity and benefit fraud, and much more. The difference between

catching these criminals or letting them escape is often a matter of minutes—and depends on

getting the right information into the right hands timely. Because of the Green Light Law, that

crucial material may be shielded from the appropriate federal officers, putting their lives and safety

and the public in harm’s way. The Green Light Law must be enjoined to put an end to these

senseless, unlawful risks.

12
 CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

COUNT ONE – VIOLATION OF THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE

42. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraph 1 through 41 of the Complaint as if fully

stated herein.

43. The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution provides that “[t]his

Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof . . . shall

be the supreme Law of the Land . . . any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the

Contrary notwithstanding.” U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2.

44. New York’s Green Light Law violates the Supremacy Clause because it is expressly

preempted by Section 1373’s requirement that States “not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any

government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, [federal immigration officials]

information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.”

8 U.S.C. § 1373.

45. New York DMV records show “information regarding” an alien’s “citizenship or

immigration status,” because they bear on whether an alien is removable or has been ordered

removed. New York’s Green Light Law illustrates precisely why Congress enacted Section 1373

in the first place—and thus falls within the heartland of what that provision preempts. See New

York, 951 F.3d at 96; New York, 179 F.3d at 35; see also, e.g., H.R. Rep. No. 104-725, at 383 (1996)

(Section 1373 ensures that state and local officials will be free to voluntarily “communicate with

[federal authorities] regarding the presence, whereabouts, or activities of illegal aliens”).

46. New York’s Green Light Law is also conflict preempted because it “stands as an

obstacle to the accomplishment and execution” of the federal immigration laws. Arizona, 567 U.S.

at 406 (citation omitted).

13
 47. Establishing an “obstacle” to the enforcement of federal immigration law was the

entire point of the Green Light Law. And it accomplishes that end at every turn. The Green Light

Law frustrates the principles of cooperation underlying the immigration laws, barring state and

local officials from sharing material with federal immigration officials—even when they wish to

do so. It further limits how the Federal Government can share material across (or even within) its

own components, interfering with the information-sharing system in place among agencies for

“homeland security information[.]” E.g., 6 U.S.C. § 482.

48. The Green Light Law also creates an obstacle undermining general federal

immigration enforcement efforts. Its tip-off provision requires the New York DMV Commissioner

to tell illegal aliens that their information has been requested by a federal immigration agency.

Contra 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) (making it a crime to “attempt[]” to “shield from detection”

any illegal alien).

49. Accordingly, New York’s Green Light Law violates the Supremacy Clause.

COUNT TWO – VIOLATION OF THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE

50. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 49 of the Complaint as if fully

stated herein.

51. New York’s Green Light Law violates basic principles of intergovernmental

immunity by unlawfully regulating the Federal Government. Under the Supremacy Clause, “the

activities of the Federal Government are free from regulation by any state.” Mayo v. United States,

319 U.S. 441, 445 (1943).

52. The Green Light Law does just that. The Law’s restrictions on information sharing

between and among Federal Government agencies, and its certification requirement, constitute

unlawful direct regulation of the Federal Government.

14
 53. Accordingly, New York’s Green Light Law violates the Intergovernmental

Immunity Doctrine in violation of the Supremacy Clause.

COUNT THREE – VIOLATION OF THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE

54. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 53 of the Complaint as if fully

stated herein.

55. New York’s Green Light Law “singles out” federal immigration authorities,

specifically ICE and CBP, for disfavored treatment—exactly what intergovernmental-immunity

principles bar. See Dawson v. Steager, 586 U.S. 171, 178 (2019). The Law limits information-

sharing only with “any agency that primarily enforces immigration law”—which definitionally is

federal, given the United States’ exclusive authority over immigration. See N.Y. Veh. & Traf. §

201.12(a).

56. Such discriminatory targeting of the Federal Government is unlawful. See, e.g.,

United States v. Washington, 596 U.S. 832, 839 (2022) (A “state law discriminates against the

Federal Government . . . if it singles them out for less favorable treatment or if it regulates them

unfavorably on some basis related to their governmental status.”) (citations and alterations

omitted).

57. For this additional, separate reason, New York’s Green Light Law violates the

Intergovernmental Immunity Doctrine in violation of the Supremacy Clause.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

The United States respectfully requests the following relief:

A. That this Court enter a judgment declaring that New York’s Green Light Law

violates the Supremacy Clause, and is therefore both unlawful and unenforceable;

15
 B. That this Court enter a permanent injunction barring Defendants—as well as any of

their successors, agents, or employees—from enforcing New York’s Green Light Law;

C. That this Court award the United States its fees and costs in this action; and

D. That this Court award any other relief it deems just and proper.

DATED: February 12, 2025

BRETT A. SHUMATE
Acting Assistant Attorney General
Civil Division

DREW C. ENSIGN
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
AUGUST FLENTJE
Deputy Director
EREZ REUVENI
Assistant Director
Office of Immigration Litigation

ERIC HAMILTON
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
ALEXANDER K. HAAS
Director
JACQUELINE COLEMAN SNEAD
Assistant Director
CRISTEN C. HANDLEY
ELISABETH J. NEYLAN
Trial Attorneys
Federal Programs Branch

Attorneys for the United States

16