The broader federal effort to remove commercial driver’s licenses (CDLs) from a significant number of holders was looming over a Washington courtroom Friday, as California and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) faced off over the federal government’s decision to halt the state’s ability to issue non-domiciled CDLs and withhold certain transportation funding.
The arguments before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, however, centered on narrower legal questions. At the core of the dispute is whether California adequately cooperated with FMCSA during an audit of its CDL practices and whether the agency acted within its legal authority when it imposed a “pause” on the issuance of new non-domiciled CDLs.
Non-domiciled CDL holders are overwhelmingly immigrants.
The federal government’s decision to withhold some highway funding from California was also part of the wider dispute, although it received relatively limited attention during Friday’s oral arguments. The funding was frozen following FMCSA’s findings concerning California’s CDL practices and the agency’s contention that the state had failed to cooperate on certain matters.
The case is California Department of Motor Vehicles v. U.S. Department of Transportation.
The dispute over expiration dates
One of the central disagreements concerns the expiration dates attached to certain non-domiciled CDLs issued in California. FMCSA maintains that some licenses were allowed to remain valid beyond the date on which the holder’s legal authorization to remain in the United States expired.
California disputes that interpretation of federal law.
In its court filing, the state argued that there is no federal requirement explicitly stating that a CDL must expire on or before the expiration date of a driver’s lawful-presence documentation. California said FMCSA had identified no such federal rule and instead relied on an interpretation under which the validity period of a non-domiciled commercial learner’s permit or CDL must not exceed the period covered by the driver’s lawful-presence documents.
Representing FMCSA, Justice Department attorney Simon Jerome took a different view during the hearing. He questioned the logic of issuing a credential that could remain valid for years when the document establishing the driver’s legal presence in the country expires almost immediately.
Jerome said that question lies at the center of California’s legal position.
The FMCSA “pause” followed the failure of the agency and California to resolve their disagreements. It applies specifically to the issuance of new non-domiciled CDLs and the renewal of existing licenses.
California Deputy Attorney General Kristen Kido, representing the state Department of Motor Vehicles, stressed the distinction during her presentation. She acknowledged the serious consequences of the pause but noted that fully decertifying California would affect all commercial licenses.
That broader decertification has not occurred.
Kido nevertheless argued that FMCSA lacks authority to impose what she characterized as a potentially indefinite, pre-enforcement pause. In particular, she challenged the agency’s ability to prevent the DMV from issuing new licenses while also restricting its ability to correct or renew otherwise valid, unexpired licenses.
A case built around timelines and cooperation
Much of Friday’s hearing focused on detailed questions surrounding deadlines, responses and cooperation between California’s Department of Motor Vehicles and FMCSA.
The judges questioned whether the state responded quickly enough to recommendations and requirements issued by FMCSA after the agency’s audit of California’s CDL program.
At one point, Jerome and Judge Cornelia Pillard discussed a letter the DMV sent to FMCSA on Christmas Eve. The exchange examined whether California could reasonably have been expected to respond more quickly given the holiday period.
Jerome argued that the broader questions of timing and responsiveness are at the heart of the case.
He also raised the issue of whether FMCSA should have given the DMV additional time to address the agency’s concerns.
California did cancel thousands of CDLs
The timeline is also significant in relation to the action California itself took after the FMCSA audit.
California canceled numerous non-domiciled CDLs, including approximately 17,000 licenses, following the federal review.
Kido argued that those cancellations could amount to substantial compliance with the relevant elements of federal law. Even if the state did not meet a particular corrective deadline, she maintained that missing that schedule alone should not constitute an independent basis for determining that California was noncompliant.
The positions presented by Kido and Jerome largely reflected the arguments their respective legal teams had already submitted in written briefs ahead of the oral arguments.
While both sides agreed on several aspects of the applicable federal law, California argued that FMCSA had adopted an overly expansive interpretation of the governing statutes.
The federal government, meanwhile, characterized the situation as involving systemic violations of both federal and California law. According to FMCSA’s brief, nearly one-third of the non-domiciled CDLs issued by California — approximately 20,000 out of 65,000 — were improperly issued because their expiration dates extended beyond the applicants’ periods of lawful presence in the United States.
Another non-domiciled CDL case is coming
The same fundamental question will soon return to the same appeals court in Lujan v. FMCSA, with oral arguments scheduled for next week.
That case raises additional issues, but it also addresses whether authorities can issue a non-domiciled CDL with a validity period extending beyond the date on which the holder is legally permitted to remain in the United States.
The legal battles are unfolding as federal authorities have continued tightening the rules governing non-domiciled CDLs.
North Carolina, meanwhile, has received approval from the Department of Transportation to resume issuing non-domiciled CDLs after completing several required changes, according to the Raleigh News & Observer.
However, the situation has since evolved. FMCSA has significantly tightened the requirements for non-domiciled individuals seeking a CDL, and those stricter rules are among the issues expected to be examined in the Lujan case when arguments are heard Wednesday.
