The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s February final rule almost completely banning non-domiciled CDLs has passed a major legal hurdle.
On May 5, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied a petition to pause FMCSA’s ban. This comes as a complete reversal to the same court’s November decision to pause an earlier version of the rule.
Unlike the first legal clash, which FMCSA lost, this time the court ruled in the agency's favor, largely agreeing with its rationale for banning non-domiciled CDLs and giving FMCSA a wide berth to enforce safety standards as it sees fit.
[Related: Non-domiciled CDL drivers say DOT’s new rule violates their civil rights]
FMCSA's first rulemaking attempt in September, an Interim Final Rule that sought to remove CDL eligibility from some 194,000 of 200,000 total non-domiciled CDL holders, fell apart in court for three reasons.
First, the agency hadn't consulted the states. Second, it leaned on some anecdotal crash data. And third, it hadn't made the case that the rule would improve safety or that non-domiciled CDL drivers were any less safe than others.
After the second rulemaking, the same petitioners promptly again asked the court to stop the rule.
This time, FMCSA appears to have corrected those issues. FMCSA's second rulemaking attempt in February, a Final Rule, came after the agency read more than 8,000 comments about its original version and consulted with states.
The Final Rule did away with accepting Employee Authorization Documents entirely after a national audit of non-domiciled CDL issuance showed widespread issues with states interpreting those documents.
FMCSA ended up calling out 28 states and jurisdictions over wrongly issuing non-domiciled CDLs, and California and New York ultimately lost federal funding over continued non-compliance.
[Related: California capitulation: CHP finally enforcing English language proficiency roadside]
Rather than resting on anecdotes about safety, namely five deadly crashes caused by non-domiciled CDL drivers in 2025, this time the rule was specific about process.
"States must assess the prior driving records of CDL applicants, yet they cannot access the foreign driving records of aliens domiciled abroad," the court wrote in its decision.
FMCSA also "flagged broader concerns over state compliance with federal eligibility requirements," the court noted. "The FMCSA’s annual compliance review revealed that the use of EADs to establish eligibility had proven difficult" partially because of "state clerks’ frequent misreading of the immigration codes on EADs."
On claims that foreign drivers are less safe than U.S. citizens, FMCSA formally backed off, saying its examples like the triple-fatal Florida turnpike crash from driver Harjinder Singh were merely "illustrative," not exactly proof.
[Related: State Department resumes issuing visas for commercial truck drivers as non-domiciled CDLs return]
The non-domiciled driver and unions that tried to stop the rule "contend that foreign domiciliaries are no more prone to accidents than other drivers, despite the agency’s highlighting accidents involving foreign drivers," the court wrote.
But FMCSA's second shot at the rulemaking sidesteps that argument. FMCSA's "current safety rationale does not rest on that premise," the court wrote. "Instead, it rests on two different propositions."
The first premise is that drivers with a history of driving offenses are more likely to be involved in future crashes, and the second is that states don't have access to the driving records of foreign nationals.
"The petitioners here do not seriously contest either proposition," the court wrote.
FMCSA's February Final rule described an "unacceptable bifurcated standard in driver vetting." The rule, which still allows non-citizen holders of H-2A, H-2B and E-2 visas to get non-domiciled CDLs, reasoned that the "consular vetting" done by the state department would catch any dangerous driving behaviors.
The legal challenge to FMCSA's rule came from the same non-domiciled CDL holder owner-operator, Jorge Rivera Lujan, as the previous challenge. Rivera, who came to the U.S. at the age of two and is a recipient of the Deferred Action upon Childhood Arrivals program, had his specific legal status addressed by FMCSA and the court.
Ultimately, Rivera still holds an EAD, which FMCSA says states have simply failed to process correctly far too often. For that reason, the court found it reasonable to deny him a CDL.
Yet Rivera, and the unions joining him in the petition, as well as some supportive immigrant organizations and other drivers, will get a chance to argue further to the court.
Rivera can submit a brief to the court by June 15, and FMCSA can respond by July 15. After a little back and forth, oral arguments will take place in September.
In December, Overdrive polled more than 5,000 readers and found 88% overall favored DOT's move to oust non-domiciled drivers, 70% said the move would boost rates, and even 21% of non-citizens who could lose their CDLs under the rule supported the measure.
