The Small Business in Transportation Coalition (SBTC) has strengthened its legal campaign to force the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) to revoke the commercial driver’s license (CDL) authority of New York and California. However, transportation law specialists believe the coalition faces an uphill battle, arguing that federal regulators have broad discretion over how they enforce CDL compliance.
In filings submitted on July 10 to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, SBTC argued that federal law requires the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) to decertify any state found to be in substantial noncompliance with federal CDL regulations. The coalition is asking the court to compel the agency to take that action, marking the next procedural stage after the case was officially docketed last month.
At the center of the dispute is 49 U.S.C. §31312, which SBTC says makes decertification mandatory once the Transportation Secretary determines that a state has failed to comply with federal CDL standards. The coalition also claims the DOT unlawfully delayed responding to its May 27, 2025, petition requesting decertification orders against both states.
In addition to seeking a final ruling, SBTC has asked the court to immediately suspend New York’s and California’s authority to issue commercial driver’s licenses until both states are found to be fully compliant with federal requirements.
Transportation attorney Greg Reed, a partner at Hanson Bridgett LLP, believes SBTC’s case relies heavily on its interpretation of the word “shall” within the statute. In his view, however, the Department of Transportation retains considerable flexibility in determining how to address states that fail to meet CDL standards.
Reed explained that Congress provided the DOT with several enforcement options, including withholding federal highway funding while states work toward compliance, rather than requiring immediate decertification. He said the agency has multiple tools available and is not legally obligated to revoke a state’s CDL program as soon as noncompliance is identified.
Reed said the lawsuit is particularly unusual because the FMCSA has never before taken the extraordinary step of decertifying a state’s CDL program.
Historically, the Department of Transportation has relied on the threat of withholding federal funds instead of pursuing decertification. Reed believes that history makes it unlikely a federal court would order the agency to take such a dramatic enforcement action.
He also questioned whether SBTC can demonstrate the type of direct legal injury required to succeed in federal court. The coalition has pointed to a fatal bus crash in Virginia involving a commercial driver licensed in New York as evidence supporting decertification, but Reed argued that the connection is too indirect to justify judicial intervention.
Another challenge, Reed noted, is that the lawsuit focuses on what the FMCSA allegedly failed to do rather than challenging a specific agency action. Under the Administrative Procedure Act, courts generally review agency decisions rather than agency inaction, making the legal path more difficult.
Reed suggested that the litigation could be intended as much to generate political and public pressure on the DOT and FMCSA as it is to secure a courtroom victory.
While he considers SBTC’s chances of success to be low, Reed acknowledged that the consequences would be significant if either California or New York lost the ability to issue new commercial driver’s licenses.
As two of the nation’s largest transportation markets and among the biggest issuers of CDLs, preventing either state from licensing new commercial drivers would quickly reduce trucking capacity and affect the industry’s workforce pipeline.
The Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) shares a similar assessment regarding the practical impact of any decertification.
The Washington-based nonprofit organization, which represents government agencies and industry officials across the United States, Canada and Mexico, said that a federal decertification order would primarily affect future CDL transactions, including new licenses, renewals, transfers and upgrades.
Existing commercial drivers holding valid licenses would generally not lose their driving privileges automatically. Current CDLs would remain valid until their expiration dates unless they were individually suspended, revoked, cancelled or the driver became otherwise disqualified.
CVSA also emphasized that roadside inspectors verify commercial licenses through the federal Commercial Driver’s License Information System (CDLIS) or the Nlets database. Inspectors do not have the authority to disregard a license that remains valid within those systems.
Because no state has ever been decertified, CVSA noted that the FMCSA would need to issue new guidance to enforcement officers if such a situation were ever to occur.
The organization added that the greatest disruption would be felt by future commercial drivers rather than those already working in the industry.
Federal regulations do provide an alternative for drivers residing in a decertified state by allowing them to apply for a non-domiciled CDL from another participating state. However, CVSA cautioned that participation in the non-domiciled CDL program is voluntary, meaning not every state offers that option.
In separate filings submitted on July 10, SBTC formally outlined the legal questions it wants the D.C. Circuit to resolve. These include whether Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy has a mandatory duty to decertify New York and California following FMCSA’s findings of substantial noncompliance, as well as whether the agency effectively denied SBTC’s earlier petition by failing to act.
The coalition also identified FMCSA’s April 16 notice finding New York substantially noncompliant and listed the DOT, FMCSA and the United States as respondents in the case.
The California Department of Motor Vehicles declined to comment on the litigation, describing it as a federal matter and referring to its earlier announcement concerning the cancellation of certain non-domiciled commercial driver’s licenses.
The FMCSA, the New York Department of Motor Vehicles, and SBTC did not respond to requests for comment.
This is not the first time SBTC has challenged federal commercial driver licensing policies. In July 2025, the coalition called on the DOT and FMCSA to remove rules allowing new non-North American-based carriers to obtain U.S. operating authority, citing the policy as inconsistent with U.S. national interests.
