No. 74 - Cubas v. Martinez

This action was commenced in 2004 to challenge new proof-of-identity requirements imposed by the Commissioner of the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) for issuance or renewal of drivers' licenses and non-driver identification cards. The eight plaintiffs are aliens who have lived in New York City for periods ranging from 5 to 20 years; five of them are undocumented. They challenge DMV's requirement that applicants who are ineligible for a Social Security number because they lack work authorization, who previously could complete their license application by submitting an SSN Card
Denial Notice from the Social Security Administration, must now also submit current documents from the Department of Homeland Security establishing that they are ineligible for a Social Security number and that they are legally present in the country. Plaintiffs also challenge DMV's "one year/six month rule" for non-citizens, which generally restricts drivers' licenses to those who can provide Immigration and Naturalization Service documents showing they were authorized to remain in the country for at least one year and that at least six months remains on their authorization. Plaintiffs contend DMV exceeded its authority, failed to comply with state constitutional and statutory requirements for adoption of regulations, and violated the state and federal equal protection and due process clauses when it adopted the "legal presence requirement" and "one year/six month rule."

Supreme Court, finding the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits, issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting DMV from enforcing the new rules. "The statutory requirements to obtain a license are proof of: 1) identity, 2) age, 3) fitness, and 4) a Social Security number or ineligibility for a Social Security number," it said. While DMV has discretion to require proof of those elements, the court said, "DMV cannot make current immigration documents, or any other documentary proof of one's immigration status, the only documents that are acceptable to verify an applicant's identity because such a policy creates a de facto fifth requirement (legal presence) that is not currently part of the statute.

DMV cannot use its rule making authorization to usurp the function of the legislature...."
The Appellate Division, First Department reversed, dismissed the complaint, and declared the requirements were valid and enforceable. Holding that the Commissioner did not exceed his statutory authority, it said, "This court concludes that the procedures instituted by the Commissioner fulfill his statutory mandate to obtain reliable proof of identity and eligibility before issuing a license. That the documentation requirements have a disproportionate adverse impact on those who, by definition, do not possess the requisite documentation does not render the Commissioner's identification procedures ultra vires." It also found no constitutional violation, saying, "Plaintiffs point to no authority for their proposition that an undocumented alien has a fundamental right to a license that cannot be compromised by the state, even to promote a legitimate governmental interest" such as preventing fraudulent use of identification documents.