New York and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) are preparing for a legal showdown over the state’s handling of non-domiciled commercial driver’s licenses (CDLs) and Commercial Learner’s Permits (CLPs), with oral arguments scheduled for September 28 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in lower Manhattan.
The dispute centers on a fundamental question: must the expiration date of a non-domiciled CDL or CLP issued by New York — or by any state — be limited to the period during which the holder is legally authorized to remain in the United States?
New York says federal law does not impose such a requirement. FMCSA takes a different view, arguing that federal regulations governing lawful presence effectively require states to ensure that non-domiciled credentials do not remain valid beyond the period supported by an applicant’s documentation.
The case follows the Department of Transportation’s decision in April to withhold approximately $73 million in federal funding from New York over the issue. The state responded by filing suit in the Second Circuit, characterizing the federal action as “political payback.”
With FMCSA filing its brief last week, both sides have now laid out their positions ahead of the September hearing.
New York: the rule does not exist
New York’s brief places the existence — or absence — of a specific expiration-date requirement at the heart of its case.
According to the state, FMCSA’s December 2025 “preliminary determination of substantial noncompliance” followed a review that identified what the agency described as “systemic policy, procedural and programming errors” in a sample of New York licenses.
FMCSA found that 101 licenses had expiration dates extending beyond the validity periods shown on the lawful-presence documents submitted when those licenses were issued.
New York says FMCSA then asserted, without citing specific legal authority, that the state Department of Motor Vehicles was required to make the validity period of a non-domiciled CLP or CDL no longer than the period covered by the driver’s lawful-presence documentation.
The state disputes that interpretation.
New York argues that FMCSA has not identified any regulatory provision expressly requiring the expiration date on a non-domiciled CDL to correspond with the expiration of the applicant’s lawful-presence documents. The state specifically points to 49 C.F.R. § 384.212, saying the provision cited by FMCSA does not address license expiration dates.
New York also maintains that no other regulation incorporated into that provision creates such a requirement.
An implicit requirement versus an explicit one
FMCSA’s position, according to New York’s filing, is that the expiration-matching requirement was effectively implicit in the federal regulatory framework.
The agency argues that otherwise, provisions requiring CDL and CLP applicants to establish lawful presence at the time their credentials are issued would become “meaningless” or “inconsequential.”
New York counters that Supreme Court precedent requires federal funding conditions to be stated clearly when the government seeks to impose them on states.
The state also relies on § 383.73(f)(2), arguing that the federal rules governing state procedures for issuing CDLs to both domiciled and non-domiciled drivers do not establish different expiration standards.
New York points in particular to the federal rule limiting a state-issued CDL to a maximum validity of eight years, arguing that the provision presumptively applies to both domiciled and non-domiciled credentials.
Importantly, New York does not argue that the disputed licenses necessarily stayed valid beyond the recipients’ actual legal periods of authorized presence. Its position is narrower: the state says federal law does not contain the specific requirement FMCSA is attempting to enforce.
FMCSA points to licenses lasting years beyond lawful presence
The Department of Transportation’s brief takes aim directly at the practical consequences of New York’s licensing system.
During its audit, FMCSA says, more than half of the licenses it reviewed had expiration dates that extended well beyond the period during which the holders could demonstrate lawful presence in the United States at the time they applied.
In some cases, according to the federal filing, CDLs were issued for seven or eight years longer than the applicants’ documented periods of lawful presence.
DOT says New York explained that these “overlong expiration dates” resulted from a limitation in the state’s system: the system did not check how long a license holder was authorized to remain in the country.
That finding has become a central element of the federal government’s argument that New York’s licensing procedures were not compliant with federal requirements.
Cooperation becomes another point of contention
The dispute is not limited to the interpretation of federal regulations.
FMCSA also accuses New York of refusing to work with the agency toward resolving the compliance issues identified during the review.
According to FMCSA’s account of an informal conference held with New York in February, the agency emphasized that states could issue non-domiciled CDLs only to applicants who presented unexpired evidence of lawful presence.
FMCSA therefore considered credentials issued with expiration dates extending beyond the validity of the documents presented by applicants to have been improperly issued.
The agency says it provided New York with a series of steps that would have brought the state’s program into compliance. New York declined to adopt them.
The Final Determination of Substantial Noncompliance followed in April, triggering the withdrawal of the federal funds and prompting New York to take the dispute to federal court.
FMCSA’s brief is less detailed than New York’s on the precise legal basis for requiring CDL expiration dates to correspond with the period of lawful presence.
Instead, the federal filing places considerable emphasis on New York’s refusal to cooperate with the agency’s efforts to resolve the matter.
New York, for its part, says its disagreement with FMCSA’s interpretation should not have prevented the agency from continuing discussions with the state.
The state argues that FMCSA’s position effectively treats the disagreement as irrelevant because New York’s DMV was required to work with the agency to resolve the identified issues.
FMCSA responds that New York is itself misinterpreting the applicable federal regulations, which the agency says link CDL issuance to lawful presence.
A new bill enters the debate
The dispute is also unfolding alongside a separate legislative effort in Washington.
While there is no disagreement that FMCSA audited New York’s records, Wyoming Congresswoman Harriet Hageman introduced legislation last week that would require federal safety regulators to conduct audits of states issuing non-domiciled commercial driver’s licenses.
Hageman has named the legislation the Strengthening Transportation Oversight and Preventing (STOP) Improper Licensing Act.
According to a statement released by her office, the bill would require federal safety regulators to audit states issuing non-domiciled CDLs to illegal aliens and unqualified drivers.
The legislation has received endorsements from several major trucking organizations. Hageman’s office cited support from the American Trucking Associations, the Truckload Carriers Association and the Owner Operator Independent Drivers Association.
Midterm elections could limit the bill’s prospects
Despite the attention surrounding the legislation, its chances of becoming law during the current Congress appear limited.
With the November 4 midterm elections approaching, Washington is increasingly discussing the election in terms of days and weeks rather than months. The general expectation is that Congress is unlikely to pass significant new legislation before the election.
Hageman is also the Republican nominee for U.S. Senate in Wyoming. She is seeking to succeed retiring Sen. Cynthia Lummis and is widely expected to win the seat.
For now, however, the immediate battleground remains the federal court.
New York and FMCSA will present their oral arguments on September 28, with the outcome potentially shaping how states across the country handle the validity periods of non-domiciled CDLs and CLPs.
