One of the more significant trucking-related court cases of the decade revolves around a single word. It’s called “unexpired.” It can be found in a federal regulation. And by next year, the livelihoods of about 200,000 commercial drivers could be drastically altered based on how a panel of appellate judges interprets it.
Midway through March 2026, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration published its final rule, “Restoring Integrity to the Issuance of Non-Domiciled Commercial Drivers Licenses.” Employment Authorization Documents were no longer recognized as a legitimate basis for obtaining non-domiciled CDLs. The action was presented by the agency as a safety precaution. Opponents described it as more akin to an immigration enforcement operation disguised as regulation.
The legal backlash was swift. The D.C. court heard Rivera Lujan v. FMCSA. Circuit Court, filed by owner-operator Jorge Rivera Lujan and a group of state governments, unions, and advocacy organizations. Their main point is simple: FMCSA has never produced reliable safety data demonstrating that, in comparison to other commercial drivers, EAD holders or DACA recipients cause more accidents, pose greater risks on the highway, or represent any quantifiable danger. The plaintiffs contend that the rule is arbitrary and capricious in the absence of that evidence, which is the kind of language courts take seriously when agencies go too far.
The tone of the D.C. oral arguments is what stands out the most. Circuit judges appear to have taken. According to reports from the September proceedings, the panel was clearly more skeptical of the government than of the challengers. According to reports, one judge said that the agency’s reasoning “just doesn’t make any sense.” A federal agency would prefer not to hear such language from a bench that it is attempting to influence.
Concurrently, distinct but connected conflicts have been taking place. Thirty states were issuing non-domiciled CDLs that exceeded the expiration dates of applicants’ work authorization documents, according to FMCSA audits of state CDL programs. Only California and New York were found to have not sufficiently complied with the agency’s follow-up requirements. The result was immediate: $73 million was taken out of New York and about $160 million was withheld from California.
The dispute was brought to federal court by both states. The D.C. Circuit heard California’s case on September 11. On September 28, the Second Circuit heard New York’s case. The spirit of the arguments was strikingly similar. The agency “pointed to no federal rule” requiring CDL expiration dates to coincide with an immigrant’s legal authorization period, according to California’s attorneys.
The noncompliance finding was based on a requirement that “doesn’t exist in any federal statute or regulation, is not memorialized in any guidance documents, and has never been enforced,” New York’s lawyer informed the judges.” That’s a big claim, basically saying that FMCSA created a standard and then punished states for not adhering to it.
Simon Jerome, the FMCSA’s Justice Department lawyer, retaliated with what amounts to a common-sense argument. He said that using a work authorization document that expires the following day to grant a commercial license that is valid for five or eight years is illogical. On the surface, that is a valid point. However, courts don’t usually make decisions based on what seems reasonable. The government’s stance seems to be in jeopardy when it comes to what the law actually says.
The funding freeze was referred to by New York Governor Kathy Hochul as “political payback,” and it’s difficult to overlook the larger context in which this regulation was established. The groups it impacts—DACA recipients, refugees, and asylum seekers—are the ones who have been at the center of immigration discussions for years. The policy was developed during a time of vigorous federal action on immigration. This context influences how this fight is viewed outside of the courtroom, regardless of whether it is legally significant.
The outcome of either circuit’s decision is still up in the air, and additional appeals may still be made after those rulings. However, the pattern that emerged from oral arguments indicates that federal judges are not always following the FMCSA’s lead. It is likely that the agency will need to do more than use safety as an excuse. It must display it.
