On Wednesday, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi took steps to initiate legal proceedings against New York officials regarding a state law implemented in 2019 that permits immigrants to acquire state-issued driver’s licenses without regard to their legal status. However, New York is not isolated in this approach, as at least 19 other states along with the District of Columbia have adopted similar laws. These laws are often referred to as “Green Light” or “Drive Only License” laws, with some having been in place for several decades. The specific provisions of these laws can vary from state to state, including whether the information of license holders can be shared with federal authorities—a particular issue for Bondi, who criticized New York’s law as a “green light to illegal immigration.”
So why is this matter being raised now? Bondi announced during her initial press conference, aligning with President Donald Trump’s stringent immigration promises, that the federal government intends to sue New York Attorney General Letitia James and Governor Kathy Hochul concerning the Green Light Law. Although this legislation aims to enhance roadway safety and assist immigrant drivers in acquiring insurance, Bondi expressed that it includes a clause mandating the state’s motor vehicle commissioner to alert license holders when federal immigration agencies request their information, which she deemed unconstitutional and a way of “tipping off” illegal immigrants.
Which other states are following suit? Alongside New York, states that have implemented similar drive-only laws encompass California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington—the last of which has operated the longest, since 1993. This particular law allows individuals without Social Security numbers to present alternative proof of residence, such as a utility bill or tax identification number. In contrast, Minnesota’s law is more recent; enacted in 2023, it eliminated the need for applicants to show legal presence, potentially impacting around 81,000 individuals. While U.S. citizenship or permanent residency proof is not necessary, applicants must provide identification documents like an unexpired foreign passport or a certified foreign birth certificate. Importantly, under this law, the Minnesota Department of Public Safety is barred from sharing applicant information with immigration law enforcement.
Are these licenses comparable to standard driver’s licenses? Not quite. Holders of drive-only licenses are usually required to demonstrate knowledge of road rules, but these licenses are typically not valid for federal or in some cases state identification purposes, nor can they be used for voting. For instance, Connecticut’s Department of Motor Vehicles explicitly states that the licenses are intended solely for driving and vehicle registration purposes.
What are the concerns among some conservatives regarding these laws? Several conservative critics caution that drive-only licenses might promote illegal immigration and could potentially facilitate voter fraud in certain jurisdictions. Former Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker, a Republican, vetoed a 2022 proposal to allow undocumented immigrants to secure a state driver’s license. He contended that such a provision would complicate identity verification for the Registry of Motor Vehicles, implying that a standard Massachusetts driver’s license would no longer guarantee that a person is truly who they claim to be. Despite Baker’s objections, the legislature successfully overrode his veto, and in a subsequent midterm election, voters decided to reaffirm the law through a statewide ballot initiative.
