New Jersey Democrats – and even some Republicans – have complained about the so-called SALT cap since it was adopted as part of the 2017 federal tax reform bill.

Limiting local tax deductions on your federal tax form to $10,000 has been seen by some as a malicious action by the Trump Administration against affluent, or rather, “blue” states like New Jersey and New York. Both states joined with Connecticut and Maryland to file suit against the provision, contending its punitive nature violated the U.S. Constitution.

Not so, according to a ruling Monday by a federal district court judge in the southern district of New York state. The judge’s ruling dismissed the states’ argument and sided with the federal government.

The ruling was quickly denounced by Rep. Josh Gottheimer, (D-Dist. 5), who is fond of calling less affluent states that get the bulk of federal largess “moochers.”

He said the ruling was “absurd” and urged the states to appeal.

“The evidence couldn’t be clearer,” Gottheimer said. “The Moocher States’ targeted N.J. and other blue states and have made off like bandits with our tax dollars. I’m working with our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to fully reinstate the SALT deduction and actually lower taxes for N.J.  I’m sick and tired of paying the bills for these other states.”

Not surprisingly, the opinion by Judge J. Paul Oetkin was a lot less rhetorical.

The judge said the concept for a State and Local Tax, or SALT, deduction dates back to the nineteenth century.

“Matters continued thus into the twentieth century with the SALT deduction standing as an enduring component of the federal tax scheme, subject to periodic refinement,” it said.

But when that “refinement” occurred with the 2017 tax act, the judge said the states failed to cite a “constitutional principle” that would bar Congress from imposing the $10,000 cap. Or in other words, even if it’s “bad policy,”  (my words, not the court’s)  it does not violate the constitution.

The court sidestepped the allegation the SALT cap was driven solely by politics. But it did say there’s nothing inappropriate with the federal government using a “coercive” tax and funding policy.

Making that point, the court cited federal policy years ago that threatened to withhold highway aid to states unless they raised their drinking age to 21. In that case, the feds were forcing states to take action regarding young people drinking. In this case, the judge said the feds were seeking to compel states – at least theoretically – to lower local taxes.

That’s easier said than done, of course.

The judge’s opinion ignored the suggestion by Gottheimer and others that the goal of the change was to punish Democratic-leaning states.

Assuming that was – or is – the aim, the strategy has not been 100 percent successful.

Sure, some New Jersey residents paid more in federal income taxes this April.

But the SALT cap was a big part of the Democrats’ congressional campaign last fall.  And they flipped four Republican seats.

That may be more important in the long run than a court ruling.