Federal Court Takes Up Challenge to New CDL Licensing Rules in September

A federal appeals court will hear a major challenge to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s restrictions on non-domiciled commercial driver’s licenses on September 15, 2026. Lujan v. FMCSA reaches the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit with the rule already in force. The court docket confirms oral argument is scheduled for that date.

The dispute reaches far beyond one driver. FMCSA estimates that roughly 194,000 current non-domiciled CDL holders will eventually leave the eligible pool as credentials expire, while a much smaller group of foreign-domiciled applicants will qualify under the revised system.

The court will consider whether FMCSA had the legal authority and adequate administrative record to make that change.

What Changed Under the New CDL Rule?

FMCSA’s final CDL rule, published February 13 and effective March 16, limits non-domiciled CDL and commercial learner’s permit eligibility to foreign-domiciled applicants in three employment-based nonimmigrant categories: H-2A temporary agricultural workers, H-2B temporary non-agricultural workers, and E-2 treaty investors.

A non-domiciled CDL is a state-issued commercial credential available to certain drivers whose legal domicile is outside the United States. Under the revised framework, an Employment Authorization Document by itself no longer establishes eligibility.

DACA recipients, many asylum seekers, refugees, Temporary Protected Status holders, and people in other classifications therefore can lose access to a non-domiciled CDL unless they independently fit a qualifying category.

The rule adds procedural limits as well. A qualifying credential may last no longer than one year, or until the relevant immigration document expires, whichever comes first.

Renewals generally require an in-person visit, and state agencies must verify lawful status through the federal SAVE system. The published regulatory text sets out the eligibility and verification framework.

One easily missed detail concerns ordinary DMV business. FMCSA’s licensing guidance says a duplicate credential or certain reissuance transactions can trigger status verification and an in-person appearance.

Why FMCSA Says the Restrictions Are Necessary

FMCSA’s case centers on driver-history screening and state administration. State licensing agencies can review U.S. driving records through domestic databases, yet records from foreign jurisdictions may be unavailable or difficult to verify.

The agency says H-2A, H-2B, and E-2 applicants receive federal vetting that provides a functional substitute for foreign driving-history checks.

FMCSA also says state reviews uncovered recurring problems involving Employment Authorization Documents, including confusion over immigration category codes and credentials issued for periods longer than a driver’s lawful presence. A review of the federal arguments describes how those concerns feature in the government’s defense.

The scale is substantial. FMCSA expects states to issue about 6,000 non-domiciled CDLs per year under the narrowed categories. Its regulatory analysis says roughly 194,000 current holders will leave the eligible commercial-driving pool over a multi-year period.

For employers, the change can arrive gradually. A driver may keep a properly issued credential for a time, then encounter the new rules at renewal, transfer, upgrade, reinstatement, or another licensing transaction.

Commercial carriers also operate within a wider network of federal safety requirements, and when compliance questions surface after a serious collision, an Experienced Truck Accident Attorney may examine driver records, company practices, and applicable trucking regulations.

FMCSA says states are generally not required to revoke credentials that were validly issued under the rules in force at the time.

The Court Fight Started With an Earlier Rule

The September hearing follows an unusual regulatory sequence. FMCSA issued an interim final rule on September 29, 2025, without advance notice and comment.

On November 13, the D.C. Circuit stayed that version. In its November stay order, the court said the challengers had shown a likelihood of success on several claims, including failure to consult states as required by statute, an insufficient basis for bypassing notice and comment, and an arbitrary-and-capricious challenge to the agency’s safety explanation.

The court also pointed to FMCSA’s own earlier record, which had acknowledged limited empirical evidence connecting a driver’s country of domicile with safety outcomes.

At that stage, the court noted non-domiciled CDL holders represented about 5% of CDL holders while accounting for roughly 0.2% of fatal crashes in the data cited by the agency.

FMCSA later conducted additional consultation, considered public comments, and published the final rule in February.

The core eligibility limits survived, accompanied by a fuller explanation focused on foreign driving records, federal vetting, and state document-verification failures. The challengers’ petition for review then opened the current phase of the case.

Jorge Rivera Lujan, Aleksei Semenovskii, AFSCME, and the American Federation of Teachers filed a new challenge. Martin Luther King Jr. County in Washington brought a related case that was consolidated with it.

A divided D.C. Circuit panel declined to pause the final rule on May 5. Judges Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao concluded that the challengers had not shown the strong likelihood of success required for emergency relief, while Judge Robert Wilkins would have granted a stay.

The court’s May order kept the regulation operating and placed the case on an expedited path to September oral argument.

What Are the Challengers Arguing?

The challengers say FMCSA exceeded the authority Congress gave it to set commercial driver licensing and safety standards. Their brief characterizes the rule as a categorical visa-status restriction rather than an individualized driver-qualification standard.

They also dispute the evidentiary basis for the exclusions. CDL applicants still face knowledge, skills, and other licensing requirements, and petitioners say FMCSA has not shown that the drivers losing eligibility are less safe.

Their filing says the rule will render 97% of noncitizens who currently hold non-domiciled CDLs ineligible.

Lujan’s circumstances sharpen that argument. Court filings describe him as a DACA recipient who came to the United States as a child and has a domestic driving history.

Petitioners argue that a broad concern about inaccessible foreign records fits poorly for drivers with little meaningful foreign driving history to check. A report on the court challenge details how his circumstances feature in the case.

What Will the Court Consider on September 15?

Oral argument will center on federal administrative law and the scope of FMCSA’s statutory authority. The government says Congress gave the agency power to prescribe uniform minimum standards for CDL issuance and driver fitness, and that the rule rationally responds to unavailable foreign records and documented state-processing problems.

Petitioners answer that FMCSA cannot use broad immigration categories as a proxy for individual fitness without clearer congressional authorization and stronger evidence connecting the exclusions to safety.

The September 15 hearing will not automatically change anyone’s license status. A merits decision can follow weeks or months later. The court could uphold the rule, set it aside, or return part of the matter to FMCSA for further action.

What Drivers and Employers Should Watch Now

For the moment, the final regulation remains effective. Drivers holding a properly issued non-domiciled CDL generally do not face cancellation solely because the March rule took effect.

A later licensing transaction can bring the revised criteria into play, and FMCSA encourages states to identify older credentials that were improperly issued under prior requirements.

State implementation also matters. A licensing agency unable to meet the federal verification framework must pause affected issuance until it can comply. Drivers approaching renewal should therefore check their own state licensing agency rather than assuming procedures are identical nationwide.

The September case reaches a practical question with national consequences: how far FMCSA may go when federal transportation-safety authority, state licensing systems, immigration classifications, and commercial-driving jobs meet at the same DMV counter.

Summary

The D.C. Circuit hearing arrives after nearly a year of emergency rulemaking, court orders, revised agency reasoning, and competing claims about federal authority. FMCSA has already put the new system into operation.

Challengers are asking the court to decide whether the agency had the power and record needed to draw the eligibility lines where it did.

Until a merits decision arrives, drivers and employers have to plan around the rule currently on the books.