The Bottom Line: FMCSA’s February rule restricting non-domiciled CDL eligibility remains in effect after a federal appeals court denied requests to block enforcement. The case moves forward, with oral arguments expected in September, and the Teamsters and the Sikh Coalition have joined as supporting parties.
What Just Happened
A three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia denied emergency motions Tuesday to pause FMCSA’s final rule on non-domiciled commercial driver’s licenses. The rule, which took effect March 16, limits non-domiciled CDL eligibility to H-2A, H-2B, and E-2 visa holders – effectively excluding asylum seekers, asylees, DACA recipients, refugees, and those with temporary protected status.
Two separate groups had asked the court to halt the rule while the legal challenge proceeds: King County, Washington (which employs non-domiciled CDL holders in its public transit operations) and a coalition including truck driver Jorge Rivera Lujan, the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, the American Federation of Teachers, and Public Citizen Litigation Group.
One judge dissented – Circuit Court Judge Robert Wilkins indicated he would have granted the stay, according to a footnote in the court’s order.
Who This Affects
Approximately 194,000 non-domiciled CDL holders who don’t fall into the H-2A, H-2B, or E-2 visa categories face license cancellation under the current rule.
Carriers employing or contracting with non-domiciled drivers need to verify their drivers’ immigration status and CDL eligibility. Drivers who don’t qualify under the new restrictions cannot legally operate commercial vehicles.
Fleet managers and safety directors should be reviewing driver files now to identify potential compliance gaps before enforcement actions begin.
State DMVs continue processing CDL applications and renewals under the March 16 rule, though some states have faced compliance challenges and federal scrutiny.
The Legal Timeline
The court’s Tuesday order lays out a clear schedule for the case moving forward:
June 15, 2026: Petitioners (those challenging the rule) file their opening briefs
July 15, 2026: FMCSA files its response briefs
August 5, 2026: Petitioners file reply briefs
September 2026: Oral arguments expected before the three-judge panel
A final decision could come weeks or months after oral arguments, depending on the complexity of the legal issues and the court’s schedule.
Background: Why This Rule Exists
FMCSA issued its first attempt at restricting non-domiciled CDLs in October as an interim final rule. That version was successfully stayed by the same court after the plaintiffs argued the agency hadn’t adequately justified the emergency measure or consulted with the states.
The agency went back, conducted formal rulemaking with public comment, and issued the current final rule in February. FMCSA’s stated rationale focuses on practical enforcement challenges rather than direct safety claims:
- States cannot access foreign driving records to verify applicant histories
- State DMV clerks frequently misread immigration codes on Employment Authorization Documents
- Annual compliance reviews revealed widespread difficulties with the previous system
While FMCSA initially cited specific fatal crashes involving non-domiciled CDL holders, the agency later characterized those examples as “illustrative” rather than statistical proof of disproportionate safety risks.
New Players Join the Fight
The court’s Tuesday order also granted amicus curiae (friend of the court) status to several organizations, allowing them to file supporting briefs even though they’re not primary parties to the lawsuit:
International Brotherhood of Teamsters – The union represents thousands of truck drivers, including some who would lose CDL eligibility under the rule
Sikh Coalition – Representing Sikh drivers affected by the rule, many of whom are on visa categories now excluded from non-domiciled CDL eligibility
These amicus briefs can provide the court with additional perspectives on how the rule affects different communities within the trucking workforce.
What Plaintiffs Are Arguing
The Lujan coalition’s core legal argument is that FMCSA’s rulemaking process was “arbitrary and capricious” – a legal standard meaning the agency didn’t properly justify its decision or may have predetermined the outcome before reviewing evidence.
Specifically, plaintiffs claim FMCSA “first decided on the outcome of the rulemaking and only then looked for reasons to support it.” They argue the agency’s shifting justifications – from crash data to administrative burdens to state compliance issues – suggest the rule wasn’t based on solid evidence or reasoning.
King County adds that the rule harms public services by forcing transit agencies to lose qualified drivers who’ve been operating safely for years.
What This Means for Your Operation Right Now
If you employ non-domiciled CDL holders:
- Verify each driver’s visa category immediately
- Drivers on H-2A, H-2B, or E-2 visas can continue operating
- Drivers on other visa categories or immigration statuses cannot renew or obtain non-domiciled CDLs under the current rules
- Plan for potential driver shortages if you rely on this workforce segment
If you’re a non-domiciled CDL holder:
- Check your visa category against the allowed list (H-2A, H-2B, E-2)
- If you don’t qualify, you cannot legally renew your CDL under current regulations
- The legal challenge could overturn the rule, but that outcome isn’t guaranteed and likely won’t happen before September at the earliest
For everyone watching this case:
- The rule remains in effect unless and until the court rules otherwise
- September oral arguments are the next major milestone
- A final court decision could take months after that
The Broader Context
This case sits at the intersection of immigration policy, highway safety regulation, and workforce management. The outcome will affect not just the 194,000 drivers directly impacted, but also:
- How FMCSA can implement emergency regulations in the future
- The balance between federal safety oversight and state licensing authority
- Workforce availability in an industry already facing driver shortages
The fact that one judge dissented on the stay request suggests this is not a clear-cut case. That internal disagreement among judges could signal that a split decision is possible when the full ruling comes down.
What Happens Next
Between now and September, all parties will be filing detailed legal briefs arguing their positions. FMCSA will need to defend its rulemaking process and demonstrate why the restrictions are necessary and legally justified. Plaintiffs will work to show the rule is arbitrary, harmful, and exceeds the agency’s authority.
The Teamsters and Sikh Coalition briefs could introduce new evidence or arguments about the rule’s real-world impacts on specific driver communities.
For carriers and drivers, the message is clear: plan for the rule to remain in effect, but stay tuned to developments. This fight is far from over.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is hearing consolidated cases No. 26-1215 (Lujan v. FMCSA) and No. 26-1224 (King County v. FMCSA). FMCSA’s final rule went into effect on March 16, 2026.
