Attorneys for the Trump administration have entered the argument over New York's forthcoming law that will allow undocumented immigrants to obtain state-issued driver's licenses, calling aspects of the measure "legally suspect" in a new court filing Thursday.

It's the first time the U.S. Department of Justice has weighed in on the new law since it was approved in June and subsequently became the subject of two federal lawsuits.

One of those lawsuits was brought by Rensselaer County Clerk Frank Merola, a Republican who opposed the new law. Merola's challenging the constitutionality of the measure itself, saying he could face federal criminal charges by enforcing it.

The Trump administration, in a new filing in Merola's case Thursday, declined to evaluate the overall constitutionality of the law, but said parts of it may not survive a legal challenge because of potential conflicts with federal immigration law.

"The United States notes that there is a significant question whether the act conflicts with federal law," the filing said.

The federal government, instead, made its presence known in the lawsuit to defend the constitutionality of two sections of federal law that it argued allow for the free exchange of information from localities about undocumented individuals.

Those laws, 8 U.S.C. Sections 1373 and 1644, essentially say that neither the state nor local governments in New York can bar a government entity or official from sharing information about someone's immigration status with the federal government, the filing said.

"As the statutory text makes clear, these provisions are nothing more than information-sharing provisions that preempt state and local governments from hindering the federal government's enforcement of the immigration laws against individual aliens," the filing said.

The filing was in response to a brief argument made last month by attorneys for New York state, who said in a response to Merola's lawsuit that Sections 1373 and 1644 violate the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

"Even if the act's nondisclosure provisions did conflict with Sections 1373 and 1644, these federal laws cannot preempt state law because they are unconstitutional," attorneys for the state wrote.

But the Trump administration also openly questioned whether the state's new law, called the Green Light Law, contained provisions that conflicted with Sections 1373 and 1644.

The statute contains a handful of safeguards, for example, intended to make it more difficult for federal immigration authorities to obtain the personal information and records of someone who applies for a license under the Green Light Law.

That information can't be handed over to federal immigration authorities by local officials unless that request is approved by a judge. The law also requires local officials to contact applicants when their information is requested by the federal government.

That notification requirement, as the Trump administration pointed out in its filings, would only apply if an individual's information is requested by an agency that primarily enforces immigration law. Both of those provisions may not survive a court challenge, attorneys wrote.

"These aspects of the act are legally suspect," the filing said.

Karl Sleight, an attorney with Harris Beach in Albany who's representing Merola, said that, while the federal government didn't focus its brief on the constitutionality of the Green Light Law, its skepticism of the measure shouldn't be overlooked.

"Although their brief makes the point that they're there to defend the federal statute, to the extent that they make that observation I think is significant," Sleight said.

U.S. District Judge Gary Sharpe of the Northern District of New York is currently weighing a motion from Merola to stop the state from enforcing the law before it's set to take effect Dec. 14. The state has asked Sharpe to throw out the lawsuit.

A key argument from the state is whether Merola even has grounds to sue over the law. A separate lawsuit, brought by Erie County Clerk Michael Kearns, was thrown out last month by a federal judge over similar arguments.

In their filing Thursday, attorneys for the DOJ urged Sharpe to review that part of the lawsuit against Merola, and his specific grievances against the law, rather than the state's constitutional challenge to Sections 1373 and 1644.

"The United States respectfully submits that the court should address New York's threshold arguments first, which do not require the court to pass on the constitutionality of Sections 1373 and 1644, or on the statutes' possible application to the act," the filing said.

That doesn't mean the Trump administration won't weigh in on the constitutionality of the Green Light Law somewhere down the line.

If Sharpe grants Merola's motion to put the Green Light Law on hold, that would mean the state's effort to have the lawsuit tossed was unsuccessful. From there, the litigation will continue and possibly include another entrance by the federal government, Sleight said.

"This is an early stage," Sleight said. "After the judge makes a decision on the motions, the case will continue."

The Green Light Law is scheduled to take effect Dec. 14.

READ MORE: