(Stock photo)

A federal judge in New York has rejected an effort by the Trump administration to set aside an injunction against its so-called public-charge rule, a proposal that would make more immigrants eligible for deportation, while its attorneys seek to have the measure upheld on appeal.

U.S. District Judge George B. Daniels of the Southern District of New York wrote in the decision handed down Monday that he was still unconvinced by the Trump administration's arguments.

"To stay the injunction would be inconsistent with the Court's underlying findings of Plaintiffs' likelihood of success on the merits, and of the irreparable injury that Plaintiffs, noncitizens, and the general public would suffer in the absence of an effective injunction," Daniels wrote.

The Trump administration, meanwhile, is now asking Daniels to put a pair of lawsuits over the rule on hold while it seeks to have the injunction reversed. Attorneys for the federal government made the request in a motion filed with Daniels late Friday evening. 

That's after Daniels, in early October, approved the preliminary injunction to stop the rule from going into effect just days before it was scheduled to be implemented. The preliminary injunction was sought in dual lawsuits against the rule.

The New York Attorney General's Office is leading one of the two lawsuits, while the Legal Aid Society is representing a coalition of immigrant rights groups in the other. 

Susan Welber, a staff attorney in the Legal Aid Society's Law Reform Unit, said her clients  are opposed to any motion that would pause, or delay, proceedings in their case. Legal Aid is representing groups such as Make the Road New York and Catholic Charities.

"Our plaintiffs' goal is to get permanent relief, and to be prepared to do so we need to move forward with discovery," Welber said. "I think that's exactly what the government's stay motion would attempt to prevent."

Welber said that if Daniels agrees to put the lawsuit on hold, their hands will be tied in terms of seeking discovery, or information they could use at trial to argue that the new rule was crafted based on a discriminatory animus and would disproportionately affect people of color. 

"Our goal is to protect our clients and the immigrant communities they serve by obtaining a permanent injunction and declaration that the rule is unlawful," Welber said.

Without a permanent injunction in place, their clients could be placed at risk if the injunction approved by Daniels is reversed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Welber said.

The Second Circuit has fast-tracked the Trump administration's appeal of the preliminary injunction. Filings on the appeal will be due at various points over the next three months, which is much faster than an ordinary proceeding before the appellate court.

Attorneys for the Trump administration argued in their motion Friday that their legal strategy going forward will depend on what happens at the Second Circuit. If either lawsuit is allowed to proceed, that could be time lost in the future, they said. 

"If the Court of Appeals rules in favor of the Defendants on jurisdictional grounds, all of the resources expended during the pendency of the appeal will be irretrievably and unnecessarily lost," the filing said.

They also argued that both New York state and the groups represented by the Legal Aid Society would have nothing to lose if Daniels grants their motion to pause the litigation. Both are protected by the preliminary injunction, the Trump administration wrote.

There are also other, simultaneous, nationwide preliminary injunctions against the rule that have since been issued by federal judges in California and Washington, which would not be affected by the Second Circuit's decision, they argued.

"Plaintiffs cannot articulate any concrete way in which they would be prejudiced by a temporary stay of the proceedings in this case," the filing said.

Attorneys for the Trump administration have also asked the Second Circuit to pause the preliminary injunction while their appeal is ongoing. The Second Circuit is expected to consider that request in the coming weeks. 

The litigation has targeted the Trump administration's new definition of who would be considered a public charge, which has historically referred to individuals who are "predominantly reliant on government aid" for an extended period of time, attorneys have said.

Under the new rule, immigrants who receive one or more designated public benefits for an aggregate of 12 months during a three-year period would more likely be deemed a public charge. Those designated benefits include Medicaid, food stamps and housing subsidies.

The New York Attorney General's Office did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the new motion Monday.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which promulgated the public-charge rule, did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the decision handed down Monday.

READ MORE: