DOT Non-Domiciled CDL Lawsuit: Rivera Lujan v. FMCSA

The lawsuit challenging the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s restrictions on non-domiciled commercial driver’s licenses is Rivera Lujan v. FMCSA, filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in October 2025. It is the central non-domiciled CDL lawsuit testing whether the Trump administration can strip roughly 200,000 work-authorized non-citizens of their eligibility to drive commercial vehicles. A first panel blocked the agency’s emergency interim rule in November 2025. A second panel declined to block the final rule in May 2026. Oral argument on the merits is scheduled for September 2026.¹

Who Filed the Case and What They Want

Four petitioners filed the original challenge on October 20, 2025: Jorge Rivera Lujan, a DACA recipient who held a non-domiciled CDL; Aleksei Semenovskii, an asylum seeker; the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees; and the American Federation of Teachers. Public Citizen Litigation Group represents them. The case was docketed as No. 25-1215.²³

Martin Luther King, Jr. County (King County), Washington, filed a separate petition, No. 25-1224, that was consolidated with Rivera Lujan. The county operates a transit system that employs roughly 50 non-domiciled CDL holders, and it argued the rule threatened workforce stability and wasted its investment in training those drivers.⁴

Petitioners raised three main claims against the interim rule. First, that the FMCSA failed to consult with states as required by 49 U.S.C. § 31308 before setting uniform CDL standards. Second, that the agency lacked “good cause” under the Administrative Procedure Act to skip notice-and-comment; its rationale that advance notice would trigger a rush of applications was, the petitioners said, speculative. Third, that the rule was arbitrary and capricious because the agency did not explain how it actually promotes safety and ignored the reliance interests of drivers who built careers around their existing licenses. Petitioners pointed to the FMCSA’s own data showing non-domiciled CDL holders account for about 5% of all holders but only 0.2% of fatal crashes. King County added that the rule exceeded FMCSA’s statutory authority because Congress authorized safety standards, not “categorical immigration-based bans.”⁴

What the Rule Being Challenged Actually Does

Before September 2025, states could issue non-domiciled CDLs to a broad range of work-authorized non-citizens, including DACA recipients, refugees, and asylum seekers, using an Employment Authorization Document as proof of eligibility. More than 30 states had issued tens of thousands of such licenses under that framework.⁵

The rule, titled “Restoring Integrity to the Issuance of Non-Domiciled Commercial Drivers Licenses,” cuts that eligibility down to three visa categories: H-2A temporary agricultural workers, H-2B temporary non-agricultural workers, and E-2 treaty investors. Applicants must present an unexpired foreign passport and a matching I-94 form. Employment Authorization Documents are no longer accepted, and the rule rescinds 2023 guidance that had allowed DACA recipients who are citizens of Mexico or Canada to obtain these licenses.⁶

Industry estimates put affected drivers at roughly 200,000, about 8% of all CDL holders nationwide.⁷ The Sikh Coalition estimated the rule could eliminate licenses for approximately 97% of current non-domiciled CDL holders.⁸

How the FMCSA Defends the Rule

The agency frames the rule as safety-driven. It says states cannot reliably check a foreign applicant’s driving history abroad the way domestic applicants are checked through the Commercial Driver’s License Information System, and it argues that H-2A, H-2B, and E-2 visa holders undergo enough consular and interagency screening to serve as a rough substitute.⁹

FMCSA also cited its Annual Program Reviews of state licensing agencies, which found what the agency called “systemic, nationwide regulatory non-compliance.” Error rates in sampled non-domiciled CDL files reached 25% in California, 49% in Texas, and 53% in New York. Common violations included licenses that remained valid after a driver’s lawful-presence documentation had expired. The agency identified 17 fatal crashes in 2025 involving non-domiciled CDL holders “whose fitness could not be ensured,” resulting in 30 fatalities.⁵

On the good-cause question, the government pointed to a 2021 surge in CDL applications following the announcement of new training requirements, arguing it showed what would happen if advance notice were given.¹⁰

The First Stay: November 2025

On November 10, 2025, a three-judge panel issued an administrative stay to give itself time to evaluate the emergency motions.¹¹ Three days later, on November 13, Circuit Judges Henderson, Wilkins, and Pan voted 2-1 to grant a full stay pending review.¹⁰

The majority found the challengers likely to succeed on all three claims. The FMCSA had not consulted with states, had not shown valid good cause to bypass public comment, and had acted arbitrarily by failing to adequately explain the safety benefits or account for reliance interests. The court noted that the agency’s own data undercut its safety rationale and that the rule could actually degrade safety by forcing employers to replace experienced non-domiciled drivers with less experienced ones.¹⁰

Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson dissented. She said the court should have ordered expedited briefing rather than granting what she called the “extraordinary remedy of a stay,” credited the government’s good-cause argument, and gave more weight to the FMCSA’s safety rationale.¹⁰

The Final Rule and the Second Panel’s Ruling

The stay applied only to the interim rule. On February 13, 2026, the FMCSA published a final rule reaffirming the same substance while trying to cure the procedural defects the court had identified. The agency said it had now consulted with states, run notice-and-comment (receiving over 8,000 comments), clarified its safety rationale, and addressed reliance interests. The effective date was March 16, 2026.⁵

Petitioners filed a new challenge to the final rule, docketed as No. 26-1032 and consolidated with a related petition (No. 26-1046). On May 5, 2026, a different three-judge panel, including Judges Katsas and Rao, voted 2-1 to deny an emergency stay. The majority found petitioners had not demonstrated a strong likelihood of success this time, pointing to the fact that the final rule had gone through notice-and-comment, that the agency had consulted with states, and that FMCSA had clarified its safety rationale and addressed reliance interests in ways the interim rule had not.¹

The court did grant expedited briefing: petitioners’ briefs by June 15, 2026, the government’s response by July 15, and final briefs by August 5.¹

What This Means for Drivers and States Right Now

As of mid-2026, the final rule is in effect. States that have not brought their systems into compliance are barred from issuing new non-domiciled CDLs. The FMCSA issued preliminary determinations of substantial noncompliance to 25 jurisdictions.¹²

California cancelled approximately 13,000 non-domiciled CDLs on March 6, 2026, under federal pressure. The DMV maintains that all affected drivers had valid federal work authorization and legal presence when their licenses were issued, and characterizes the errors as administrative. A state court ruling in Doe v. Department of Motor Vehicles ordered the DMV to accept reapplications, but the agency cannot issue new non-domiciled licenses under the FMCSA’s mandatory pause. The FMCSA also withheld roughly $160 million in federal highway funding from California.¹³¹⁴

New York received a final determination of substantial noncompliance on April 16, 2026, and the DOT announced it would withhold $73,502,543 — 4% of the state’s federal highway funds for fiscal year 2027. That penalty could double in fiscal year 2028 if the state remains noncompliant, and its CDL program could face decertification.¹⁵¹⁶

Rivera Lujan is the lead case but not the only one. Nineteen affected drivers filed a separate lawsuit against the FMCSA and Florida in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on April 15, 2026, after the state indefinitely paused all non-domiciled CDL issuance, renewal, and extension.¹⁷

What Happens Next

Oral argument in No. 26-1032 is set for September 2026 before the D.C. Circuit. Two outcomes are on the table. If the court upholds the final rule, the H-2A/H-2B/E-2 restrictions stay in place and states will face continued pressure to revoke noncompliant licenses. If the court strikes it down, states could return to their previous, broader licensing practices.¹

Amicus participation on both sides suggests the ruling will be closely watched. Seven Sikh community organizations filed a joint brief arguing the rule lacks a rational safety basis and has triggered harassment and threats against Sikh truck drivers.⁸ The Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project and the National Employment Law Project filed a brief featuring testimony from eleven affected drivers, arguing the rule causes “immediate financial devastation” to work-authorized immigrants.¹⁸ The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association supports the rule, calling it a necessary reform to “remove unsafe and unqualified drivers from the industry.”¹⁹

Until the D.C. Circuit rules on the merits, drivers outside the three permitted visa categories remain ineligible for non-domiciled CDLs, and states caught between prior licensing practices and current federal demands continue to lose or risk losing federal highway funds.

1
U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Order, No. 26-1032
2
Public Citizen. Rivera Lujan v. FMCSA
3
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. Lujan v. FMCSA
4
TruckSafe. Federal Court Temporarily Halts FMCSA’s Non-Domiciled CDL Rule
5
Federal Register. Restoring Integrity to the Issuance of Non-Domiciled Commercial Drivers Licenses
6
FMCSA. Non-Domiciled CDL 2026 Final Rule FAQs
7
Scopelitis. FMCSA’s New Rule on Non-Domiciled CDLs Changes CDL Eligibility for Roughly 200,000 Drivers
8
Sikh Coalition. Amicus Brief, Lujan v. FMCSA
9
U.S. Department of Transportation. Restoring Integrity to the Issuance of Non-Domiciled Commercial Drivers Licenses
10
U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Order, No. 25-1215
11
FreightWaves. Federal Court Hits Pause on FMCSA’s Non-Domiciled CDL Rule
12
FMCSA. Non-Domiciled CDL Review
13
California DMV. Federal Government Requires California DMV to Cancel Certain Non-Domiciled Drivers Licenses
14
FreightWaves. The Non-Domiciled CDL Crackdown Has Arrived
15
FMCSA. DOT Withholds $73 Million from New York for Failure to Revoke Non-Domiciled CDLs
16
U.S. Department of Transportation. FMCSA New York Final Determination
17
CDL Life. Nineteen Non-Domiciled CDL Drivers File Lawsuit Accusing FMCSA and Florida of Ongoing and Irreparable Harm
18
National Employment Law Project. NELP-ASAP Amicus Brief
19
OOIDA. OOIDA to Trucking Regulators: Suspend Non-Domiciled Licenses