A federal lawsuit is now underway challenging the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s (FMCSA) new interim final rule that limits the issuance of non-domiciled commercial driver’s licenses (CDLs). The lawsuit, filed on October 20, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the D.C. Circuit, argues that FMCSA’s decision to enforce the rule immediately—without going through the traditional notice-and-comment process—was not justified as an emergency and is already causing significant harm.
This article outlines the facts surrounding the rule, the lawsuit, the emergency motion, and the current legal process taking place.
What the Rule Does
FMCSA’s interim final rule, announced in late September by U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, alters how state driver’s license agencies can issue and renew non-domiciled CDLs.
The rule revokes eligibility for several groups who previously qualified under existing federal standards, including:
- Individuals holding Employment Authorization Documents (EADs)
- Asylum seekers
- Asylees
- Refugees
- DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) recipients
Previously, many of these individuals could obtain a non-domiciled CDL by presenting valid EADs and meeting state-level requirements. The FMCSA estimated the rule change would remove approximately 194,000 current non-domiciled CDL holders from the trucking workforce.
The rule went into immediate effect upon announcement but is still open for public comment through November 28, 2025. According to FMCSA, more than 4,300 comments have already been submitted, many from drivers concerned about the loss of their ability to work.
Why FMCSA Says the Rule Was Needed Immediately
In its October 31 legal filing responding to the lawsuit, FMCSA argued that driver safety and national roadway security necessitated immediate action.
According to the agency:
- There is no reliable way to verify the driving history of individuals from certain foreign jurisdictions.
- Allowing individuals without verifiable records to operate commercial vehicles poses a safety risk.
- Limiting eligibility for non-domiciled CDLs reduces the number of unknown-risk drivers on U.S. highways.
FMCSA did not argue that immigration status determines driving skill. Instead, they focused on documentation gaps and the inability to assess prior violations, suspensions, or crash history from outside the United States.
Who Filed the Lawsuit and What It Seeks
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of truck driver Jorge Rivera Lujan, a long-time CDL holder and DACA recipient, by:
- Public Citizen Litigation Group
- American Federation of Teachers (AFT)
- American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME)
Rivera Lujan has reportedly lived in the United States since the age of two and has held a commercial driver’s license for over a decade. The lawsuit claims that he was unable to renew his CDL on September 30 due to the interim rule.
According to the complaint, Rivera Lujan is now at risk of losing his trucking business and his ability to provide for his family—despite having complied with all legal and licensing requirements prior to the rule change.
Emergency Motion to Delay the Rule
In addition to the main lawsuit, the plaintiffs filed an emergency motion on October 24, asking the court to temporarily block enforcement of the rule while the case is under review.
In their reply brief on November 3, the plaintiffs argued that:
- FMCSA failed to demonstrate an actual emergency justifying the use of an interim final rule.
- The rule was implemented without sufficient factual evidence supporting immediate enforcement.
- FMCSA itself acknowledged there is no “direct link” between immigration status and the ability to safely operate a commercial motor vehicle.
They further claimed the rule has already resulted in harm, including:
- The immediate loss of work eligibility for lawful residents.
- The potential for thousands of drivers to lose their CDLs, incomes, and ability to support their families.
The court will now decide whether to grant a stay (delay) on the rule’s implementation while the lawsuit proceeds. A ruling on that motion is expected soon.
Legal Questions at the Center of the Case
The case raises multiple legal and procedural questions:
- Was there a valid “emergency” under federal rulemaking standards?
- FMCSA used its authority to bypass the normal public comment period by citing urgent safety concerns.
- Plaintiffs argue the evidence cited did not meet the legal threshold for an emergency.
- Does the rule violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)?
- The APA governs how federal agencies create regulations, including the requirement for public notice and input unless a true emergency exists.
- If the court finds the rule was enacted improperly, it could be vacated or halted until full rule-making is completed.
- Are lawful U.S. residents being denied access to commercial licenses unfairly?
- The lawsuit claims the rule disproportionately affects individuals who are legally authorized to work and live in the U.S.
- These individuals previously met federal and state licensing requirements but are now being disqualified.
What’s Next
- The court will issue a decision on the emergency stay request, which could temporarily block enforcement of the rule.
- Regardless of the stay outcome, the underlying lawsuit will continue, with both sides expected to submit additional evidence and arguments in the coming months.
- FMCSA’s public comment period remains open through November 28, 2025, after which the agency could revise, finalize, or withdraw the interim rule based on public input and litigation outcomes.
In Summary
- FMCSA’s new rule immediately restricts eligibility for non-domiciled CDLs.
- A lawsuit filed on behalf of a DACA truck driver challenges both the substance and the emergency nature of the rule.
- Plaintiffs argue the rule causes irreparable harm and was enacted without legal justification.
- FMCSA says the rule is about safety and the inability to verify foreign driving histories.
This legal battle highlights a growing grey area where immigration policy, public safety, and workforce stability intersect—and it’s playing out on the backs of real drivers already on the road. FMCSA says the rule is about safety, while the lawsuit argues it sidesteps due process and punishes legal workers without warning. As the courts weigh in, the broader industry will be watching closely—because how this unfolds may set a precedent for how quickly rules can change, who gets caught in the middle, and how we balance regulation with reality in an industry already stretched thin.
The post Legal Battle Over FMCSA’s Non-Domiciled CDL Rule — What the Lawsuit Claims and What’s at Stake appeared first on FreightWaves.
