Lawyers for the Trump administration moved late Friday to dismiss New York state's challenge to a rule that would make it easier for the federal government to deny legal status to immigrants who apply for public assistance, after the U.S. Supreme Court lifted a nationwide injunction blocking it from taking effect.

In a court filing, attorneys from the U.S. Department of Justice said that the lawsuit targeting the administration's "public charge" rule should be tossed in light of the high court's 5-4 decision Jan. 27, which allowed the new regulation to take effect while the case is litigated.

The attorneys also cited an opinion by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, finding that the rule fell within authority of the executive branch to interpret who qualifies as a public charge under federal law.

"In light of the Supreme Court's stay of injunction, the Ninth Circuit's detailed ruling, and for the reasons discussed herein, defendants respectfully submit that the court should dismiss plaintiffs' complaint in full," the filing said.

Last October, U.S. District Judge George B. Daniels of the Southern District of New York became the first judge in the nation to block the rule's implementation in a ruling that was later upheld by a Manhattan-based federal appeals court.

According to Daniels, the administration had not adequately explained why it had introduced the new policy, which, he said, had no basis in U.S. immigration law and would discourage immigrants from applying for benefits to which they were otherwise legally entitled.

The rule seeks to change the definition of a public charge, a designation that has historically referred to individuals who are "predominantly reliant on government aid" for an extended period of time. Under the new rule, immigrants who receive one or more designated public benefits, such as Medicaid, food stamps and housing subsidies, for an aggregate of 12 months during a three-year period would be more likely to be deemed a public charge.

New York and immigrants rights groups have argued in separate lawsuits that the change unfairly targeted racial minorities and would cause irreparable harm to those groups if allowed to take effect.

In its filing Friday, the administration argued that the state had made no such showing, and separately asked Daniels to consolidate the two cases.

Both the Fourth and Ninth U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal have lifted similar injunctions entered by lower courts.

Read More: