Rivera Lujan v. FMCSA is a lawsuit pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that challenges a Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration rule barring most work-authorized immigrants — including DACA recipients, asylum seekers, refugees, and Temporary Protected Status holders — from holding non-domiciled commercial driver’s licenses. The challengers won an emergency stay of the agency’s original interim rule in November 2025, but the FMCSA reissued a substantively identical final rule after running a notice-and-comment process, and that rule took effect on March 16, 2026. A merits decision is expected after oral argument in September 2026.
What the FMCSA Rule Does
On September 29, 2025, the FMCSA issued an interim final rule titled “Restoring Integrity to the Issuance of Non-Domiciled Commercial Drivers Licenses.” It took effect immediately, without notice and comment, under the agency’s claim of “good cause.”1Federal Register. Restoring Integrity to the Issuance of Non-Domiciled Commercial Drivers Licenses
The rule narrowed eligibility for non-domiciled CDLs and learner’s permits to foreign-domiciled individuals holding one of three employment-based visa types: H-2A (temporary agricultural workers), H-2B (temporary non-agricultural workers), and E-2 (treaty investors). Anyone outside those categories — including DACA recipients, asylees, refugees, and TPS holders who had previously qualified using Employment Authorization Documents — was no longer eligible. Validity of any non-domiciled license is capped at the applicant’s authorized stay or one year, whichever comes first.2FMCSA. Non-Domiciled CDL 2026 Final Rule FAQs
FMCSA said the change closes a “critical safety gap,” citing systemic non-compliance found in a nationwide audit of state licensing agencies in California, Colorado, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, and Washington, and 17 fatal crashes in 2025 involving non-domiciled CDL holders that resulted in 30 deaths.3FMCSA. Fact Sheet: Protecting America’s Roads
Who Filed the Lawsuit
Public Citizen Litigation Group filed the petition for review on October 20, 2025, on behalf of four named plaintiffs. It is not a class action.4Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. Lujan v. FMCSA
Jorge Rivera Lujan, the lead plaintiff, is a DACA recipient who has lived in the United States since he was two years old. He had driven trucks for 11 years and owned his business. On September 30, 2025, one day after the rule took effect, he was denied when he tried to renew his CDL. “Without a commercial driver’s license, I will lose my business and the income that allows me to provide for my family,” he said.5Landline Media. Non-Domiciled CDL Rule Draws Emergency Challenge
Aleksei Semenovskii, the second individual plaintiff, is a Russian asylum seeker who has been in the country since 2019 and owns SEOLAEXPRESS LLC, a Pennsylvania trucking company. He has held a non-domiciled Pennsylvania CDL for five years. As an asylee, he falls outside the three visa categories the rule permits.6FAIR. Petition for Review, Case No. 25-1215
The two organizational plaintiffs are AFSCME and the American Federation of Teachers, both of which represent CDL holders working as school bus drivers, sanitation workers, and other public-sector roles.7AFSCME. Lawsuit Challenges Punitive Trump Regulation Targeting the Livelihood of Immigrants
A companion case, King County v. DOT (No. 25-1224), was filed by King County, Washington, and consolidated with Rivera Lujan. The county employs roughly 50 non-domiciled CDL holders in its transit fleet and added arguments that the FMCSA lacked statutory authority to issue what it characterized as an immigration policy rather than a safety regulation, and that the rule conflicted with the Immigration and Nationality Act.8TruckSafe. Federal Court Temporarily Halts FMCSA’s Non-Domiciled CDL Rule
The Legal Arguments
The challengers raised several administrative-law grounds for overturning the rule.
They argued the FMCSA violated the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act’s requirement that the agency consult with states before prescribing CDL regulations. The agency claimed consultation was “not practicable” and that compliance costs were not “substantial,” but the petitioners said the statute contains no such exceptions.9U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Order, Case No. 25-1215
They challenged the agency’s invocation of the Administrative Procedure Act’s “good cause” exception to skip notice-and-comment rulemaking, arguing the FMCSA had manufactured an emergency rather than demonstrated one.
They contended the rule was arbitrary and capricious because the agency conceded it lacked sufficient evidence of a measurable relationship between a driver’s immigration status and safety outcomes, and because it failed to consider the serious reliance interests of the roughly 200,000 current CDL holders who would lose their licenses.10FreightWaves. Inside the Legal Battle That Could Reshape Commercial Licensing
The petitioners also raised equal protection arguments, claiming the rule discriminated on the basis of citizenship status without adequate justification.11National Employment Law Project. Rivera Lujan v. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
On the safety rationale itself, the AFL-CIO cited the D.C. Circuit’s finding that the government’s own data showed CDL holders excluded by the rule were “involved in fatal crashes at a lower rate than CDL holders who are not excluded,” and quoted an earlier DOT admission that “there is not sufficient evidence, derived from well-designed, rigorous, quantitative analyses, to reliably demonstrate a measurable empirical relationship between the nation of domicile for a CDL driver and safety outcomes in the United States.”12AFL-CIO. Letter Calling on Congress to Hold DOT Accountable
The Stay of the Interim Rule
On October 24, 2025, Public Citizen filed an emergency motion to stay the interim rule, arguing that nearly 200,000 commercial drivers would lose their licenses if it remained in effect.13Public Citizen. Rivera Lujan v. FMCSA
A three-judge panel (Henderson, Wilkins, and Pan) issued an administrative stay on November 10, 2025. On November 13, the court replaced that with a full stay pending judicial review, finding the petitioners were “likely to succeed” on at least three of their challenges. The court found the FMCSA had likely failed to consult with states, had not justified bypassing notice and comment, and had acted arbitrarily by failing to explain how the rule would promote safety while ignoring the reliance interests of current license holders. It also found irreparable harm to the individual petitioners’ businesses, union members, and, per King County, transit safety if experienced drivers were replaced with less experienced ones. Judge Henderson dissented.9U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Order, Case No. 25-1215
The Final Rule and the Second Petition
Rather than defend the stayed interim rule, the FMCSA issued a final rule on February 11, 2026, published February 13 with a March 16 effective date. It was substantively identical — same three visa categories, same validity cap — but the agency had now completed notice and comment and consulted with states, addressing two of the procedural defects the court had identified.1Federal Register. Restoring Integrity to the Issuance of Non-Domiciled Commercial Drivers Licenses
Public Citizen filed a new petition for review the next day on behalf of the same plaintiffs, now styled Rivera Lujan v. FMCSA (II), and moved on February 26 to block the final rule before it took effect.14Public Citizen. Rivera Lujan v. FMCSA (II)
This time the court declined to issue a stay. On May 5, 2026, a different panel (Judges Katsas and Rao, with Judge Wilkins dissenting) denied the emergency motion, concluding petitioners had not shown a “strong likelihood of success” on the merits and distinguishing the final rule from the interim version because the FMCSA had since followed notice-and-comment procedures, consulted with states, and clarified its safety rationale. The rule went into effect on March 16, 2026.15U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Order, Case No. 26-1032
Where the Case Stands Now
The final rule is in effect. The D.C. Circuit denied the stay but granted expedited briefing and oral argument. Petitioners filed their opening brief on June 15, 2026; the government’s response was due July 15; reply briefs were due July 29; and oral argument was directed for the first available date in September 2026. A decision could come by late 2026.15U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Order, Case No. 26-1032
The merits question the panel will decide is whether the final rule, now backed by a notice-and-comment record and state consultations, survives the arbitrary-and-capricious challenge, particularly given the agency’s acknowledged lack of empirical evidence linking a driver’s immigration status to safety outcomes.