A federal judge has thrown out New York state's challenge to a federal tax law enacted by Congress nearly two years ago to cap the amount taxpayers can deduct in state and local taxes, a move that's been criticized by Gov. Andrew Cuomo.

U.S. District Judge J. Paul Oetken of the Southern District of New York wrote in a decision handed down Monday that the change was within the authority of Congress.

"The States have cited no constitutional principle that would bar Congress from exercising its otherwise plenary power to impose an income tax without a limitless SALT deduction," Oetken wrote.

Cuomo, in a statement Monday, said the state is weighing its options, including the possibility of appealing the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

"The bottom line is this policy is unprecedented, unlawful, punitive and politically motivated—and it must be stopped," Cuomo said. "We disagree with the court's decision and are evaluating all options, including appeal."

New York, leading a coalition that included Connecticut, New Jersey and Maryland, sued the Trump administration over the law last year, arguing it unconstitutionally forced them to adjust their own state and local tax policies to accommodate for the cap.

They challenged the law on constitutional grounds, arguing it hindered their authority as sovereign entities under the Tenth Amendment.

The measure, approved by Congress as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, capped the amount taxpayers can deduct in state and local taxes, or SALT, at $10,000. Federal law did not previously place a limit on those deductions.

The cap was expected to particularly affect high-tax areas of New York state, such as Westchester County and Long Island, where state and local tax bills regularly exceed $10,000 due to property taxes.

Cuomo also warned last year that the cap could result in lost tax revenue for the state. Individuals with high-value homes could choose to relocate, or establish a permanent residence in a nearby state with lower taxes, Cuomo said, essentially removing part of the state's tax base.

During a briefing with reporters last year, Cuomo and state officials blamed a $2.3 billion budget deficit on the tax law. It's too soon to tell if the cap will cause another budget shortfall next year.

Attorneys for New York state had argued in previous filings that the cap was enacted by Trump and Republicans to target states controlled by Democrats. Cuomo said on several occasions that he views the cap as a political attack.

From a legal perspective, the states argued the cap could force them to change their own tax structures and fiscal policies to accommodate the added costs for some taxpayers, and any lost revenue.

Oetken, in the decision, did not disagree with that point. He wrote that the cap could make the tax policies of some areas less favorable to taxpayers than others, but that states had a sovereign power to adjust for the federal change, rather than challenge it.

"The SALT cap simply requires the States to either exercise their sovereign powers—howsoever they wish—to avert or assuage the cap's effects or else suffer the uncertain budgetary effects of doing nothing," Oetken wrote. "If being put to such an open-ended choice is coercion, it will be the rare piece of federal legislation that comports with the Tenth Amendment."

That's also been the viewpoint of some who've challenged Cuomo's comments on the cap. Republicans who supported the federal tax law have argued that the state should work to reduce state and local taxes, such as property taxes, to adjust for the measure.

Cuomo, for his part, has taken steps toward easing the burden on taxpayers by enacting, through the Legislature, a cap on local property tax increases outside New York City. That measure was made permanent earlier this year.

That's slowed the growth of property taxes in New York, but a high burden remains in areas where state and local taxes often exceed $10,000. The suburbs of New York City, in particular, have some of the highest property taxes in the country.

Oetken said that, like any other federal tax law, the cap will affect different taxpayers in different ways. But that didn't make it unlawful, he wrote.

"The cap, like any federal tax provision, will affect some taxpayers more than others and, by extension, will affect some states more than others," Oetken wrote. "But the cap, again like every other feature of the federal Tax Code, is a part of the landscape of federal law within which states make their decisions as to how they will exercise their own sovereign tax powers."

New York acted last year to create a workaround for individuals whose state and local taxes exceeded the cap. The state set up charitable funds for individuals to donate the amount of their tax bills, making them fully deductible, rather than paying the usual way.

That scheme was recently struck down by a regulation enacted by the Internal Revenue Service earlier this year. New York state has filed a lawsuit against the agency challenging that regulation, which is ongoing.

Representatives from the U.S. Treasury Department, which was the target of New York's lawsuit over the cap on state and local tax deductions, did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Oetken's ruling Monday.