Undocumented immigrants in New York on Monday gained the right to seek driver's licenses from their local county clerks, but one such official in the Albany area is asking a federal judge to reconsider his legal challenge opposing the law.

Rensselaer County Clerk Frank Merola, whose lawsuit against the measure was dismissed Friday, asked a federal judge in a new court filing Monday to take a second look. 

Attorneys for Merola wrote in the new motion that, because of an expedited schedule for the litigation, they didn't have the opportunity to adequately make an argument that the law should be put on hold because of alleged constitutional violations. 

"This may have been the result of the tight briefing schedule necessitated by the looming effective date of the state statute at issue," they wrote. "The parties were required to brief, and the Court to review, numerous complex legal arguments on a very short time table."

Merola is represented by Karl Sleight of Harris Beach and Rensselaer County attorney Carl Kempf.

Merola's lawsuit against the measure, called the Green Light Law, was tossed last week in a decision from U.S. District Judge Gary Sharpe of the Northern District of New York. The law, meanwhile, took effect Monday. 

Sharpe, in his decision last week, declined to evaluate the constitutionality of the Green Light Law. Instead, he wrote that Merola couldn't sue over the law because, in New York, local officials are typically barred from challenging state legislation.

But Sharpe appeared skeptical in the decision that the Green Light Law would survive judicial review if Merola's lawsuit had been allowed to stand. 

"It should be noted that cases like this one, where the court is constrained to dismiss without deciding the legal issues at play—here, a challenge to [the law]—does not mean in the vernacular that the 'law is legal,' despite what any politician may claim," Sharpe wrote.

He noted in his decision that Merola's challenge may have stood muster if the Green Light Law was shown to have violated a "constitutional proscription," or restraint. Sharpe wrote that Merola's attorneys hadn't convinced him of such a violation.

Merola's attorneys, in the new motion, wrote that such a violation was present, but that they hadn't been able to explain as much because of a rapid schedule for the lawsuit, and page limits for their previous filings. 

"Given the short time table and page limitations, Plaintiff did not dedicate much space or explanation to this argument in its opposition brief, and recognizes that perhaps as a result, the cited case law was overlooked by the Court," they wrote.

Merola's attorneys argued in the new filing that, at this stage in the litigation, the Green Light Law should be put on hold because it could be interpreted to be in conflict with federal immigration law, which would be a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

The conflict would, specifically, be a violation of the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, Merola's attorney's have argued, because the measure prevents local officials from sharing applicant information with federal immigration authorities without a judicial warrant.

"Indeed, if someone later challenges the Green Light Law as preempted under the Supremacy Clause, Mr. Merola could be named as the defendant, and have to defend himself against claims seeking injunctive relief," Merola's attorneys wrote. 

"The chief reason Mr. Merola challenged the Green Light Law was that it requires him to violate the Supremacy Clause's proscription against the implementation of state laws that are preempted," they continued. 

They went on to note that Merola's situation—where he's being asked to enforce a state law that he's claimed conflicts with federal law—is the exact scenario in which he should be allowed to challenge the measure in court. 

After the Green Light Law took effect Monday, Merola said staff in his office hadn't been properly trained by the state on how to comply with the law, and that they had sent at least one applicant to another county to apply. 

New York Attorney General Letitia James, in a statement Friday, had defended the constitutionality of the Green Light Law and said it expected county clerks to enforce the measure, regardless of their political opinion. 

"The Green Light law is legal and enforceable, and two separate federal courts have now already dismissed the meritless claims of two county clerks," James said. "We expect all public officials to comply with the law, and, as the state's attorney and chief law enforcement officer, I will continue to vigorously defend it."

Gov. Andrew Cuomo has exclusive power to remove county clerks from office if they're not complying with state law, though he hasn't said whether he'll do so given the opportunity. 

Merola's lawsuit against the Green Light Law was the second to be dismissed in recent weeks. A challenge from Erie County Clerk Michael Kearns was also tossed, but that decision has been appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

READ MORE: