Clash over non-domiciled CDL rule drives toward oral arguments

Petitioners who want to stop the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s final rule on non-domiciled CDLs contend that the agency’s safety rationale is flawed.

In its final brief filed on Aug. 5 to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, petitioners representing truck driver Jorge Rivera Lujan called FMCSA’s final rule “arbitrary and capricious.”

“FMCSA has offered no evidence showing that the people excluded by the rule operate commercial motor vehicles less safely than other drivers,” the petitioners wrote. “In fact, FMCSA disclaims the availability of data that would enable comparison of the safety outcomes of now-ineligible CDL drivers to that of other drivers, including the largest category of drivers: those with (domiciled) standard CDLs.”

FMCSA’s non-domiciled CDL rule, which took effect on March 16, aimed to take about 200,000 CDL holders off the road. Under the rule, an Employment Authorization Document is no longer enough to obtain a non-domiciled CDL. Additionally, asylum seekers, asylees, refugees and Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients are ineligible.

As part of FMCSA’s summary of the rule, the agency identified 17 fatal crashes in 2025 that were “caused by actions of non-domiciled CDL holders whose fitness could not be ensured and thus would be ineligible under this new rule.” FMCSA said that those crashes resulted in 30 fatalities and numerous severe injuries.

However, the petitioners criticize FMCSA’s decision to focus on such a small sampling of crashes. FMCSA previously reported in its 2022 statistics that 6,050 large trucks and buses were involved in fatal crashes.

“FMCSA identified 17 crashes in 2025 that involved drivers with a ‘substantial likelihood’ of falling into the now-excluded categories,” the petitioners wrote. “To compile this list, FMCSA admits, it set out to identify only crashes involving drivers with non-domiciled CDLs.”

Attorneys for FMCSA argue that the rule is less about the 17 specific crashes and more about the inability to make sure that non-domiciled CDL holders are properly trained and vetted. When a U.S. driver applies for a CDL, their driving history is reviewed.

The agency contends that this is often not possible for applicants from other countries.

“In large part, petitioners’ arguments that the agency acted arbitrarily misstate the reason the agency acted or confuse one provision’s rationale for the other’s,” FMCSA’s attorneys wrote. “Those arguments are meritless. With respect to the eligibility provision, the rule does not rest on an assessment that alien drivers are categorically less safe than other drivers, but instead on the uncontested premise that states have no means of accessing their foreign driving history.”

The plaintiffs argue that the safety rationale does not apply to DACA recipients, who have resided in the U.S. since childhood.

“Similarly, petitioners’ focus on DACA recipients largely ignores FMCSA’s explanation that their ineligibility for non-domiciled CDLs stems not from a claim about the accessibility of their driving history, but instead because DACA recipients lack the documentation FMCSA has determined should be required to demonstrate eligibility for a non-domiciled CDL.”

Florida, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas and West Virginia all filed an amicus brief in support of FMCSA’s non-domiciled CDL rule.

Oral arguments are set for Sept. 15. LL