Arizona's refusal to issue driver's licenses to DREAMers will continue to stand pending a constitutional challenge, a federal judge ruled today.

Last year, the Obama administration implemented a deportation deferral program, which prevented young undocumented immigrants with no criminal records from being sent back to their countries of origin. This was in lieu of the DREAM Act, which would have provided a path to citizenship for those same people but never passed in Congress amid Republican objections.

Now the DREAM Act may be unnecessary, as the people it helps are included in the bipartisan immigration reform bill currently being debated by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

But in response to the administration's deportation deferral program, Arizona implemented rigorous new restrictions prevented any undocumented immigrants from receiving state-issued driver's licenses, a move seen by opponents solely as punishment, as previously immigration status was not considered by the state DMV when issuing licenses.

After today's ruling, the policy still stands, but it will be subject to further scrutiny. "The court issued a mixed ruling that gave both sides something to cheer: It declined to issue an immediate injunction preventing the policy and dismissed part of the challenge, but it did find that the policy likely violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution," writes Politico.

That is, the judge presiding over the case found issues with the Arizona policy but did not think it was egregious enough to end immediately before there is a chance for further investigation.

"In summary, the Court concludes that Defendants' distinction between DACA recipients and other deferred action recipients is likely to fail rational basis review. The Court is not saying that the Constitution requires the State of Arizona to grant driver's licenses to all noncitizens or to all individuals on deferred action status. But if the State chooses to confer licenses to some individuals with deferred action status, it may not deny it to others without a rational basis for the distinction. See Diaz, 656 F.3d at 1013 ('when a state chooses to provide such benefits, it may not do so in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner that adversely affects particular groups that may be unpopular.')," wrote U.S. District Judge David G. Campbell.

In fact, Campbell determined that the lawsuit should go faorward, though with Arizona's current legislation in place in the meantime. "Having found that Plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits of their equal protection claim, the Court cannot conclude that Plaintiffs have failed to state such a claim. Nor will the Court convert the motion to dismiss to one for summary judgment."

A hearing will be scheduled to look into the constitutionality of the Arizona law.