Court Skeptical of DOT's Restrictive Non-Domiciled CDL Rule

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia heard oral arguments in Lujan vs. FMCSA, a legal challenge to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's new rules restricting Commercial Driver's License (CDL) issuance to non-domiciled drivers. The judicial panel demonstrated significant skepticism toward the Department of Transportation's justification for narrowing acceptable documentation to only unexpired passports and I-94 forms, effectively excluding Employment Authorization Documents (EADs).

The case involves Jorge Rivera Lujan, a DACA immigrant, and challenges the agency's claim that previous 10-year driving history requirements were too burdensome for states to verify. The three-judge panel's questioning focused on whether the federal government adequately justified why states cannot manage 10-year driving record verification for non-domiciled applicants. Judges repeatedly pushed back on the DOT's rationale, suggesting that modern record-keeping systems make the claimed "safety gap" addressable without requiring restrictive documentation requirements. The judges also questioned why the new rule lacks a grandfather clause for non-domiciled drivers with established 10-year U.S. driving histories, leaving DOT counsel Simon Jerome describing himself as being "between a rock and a hard place." This case carries substantial implications for the trucking industry's labor pipeline.

Non-domiciled CDL holders represent a critical workforce segment, particularly immigrants and DACA recipients. Restrictive eligibility rules threaten to exacerbate driver shortages already challenging the freight industry, potentially reducing capacity and increasing transportation costs across supply chains. The judicial skepticism evident during oral arguments suggests the court may view FMCSA's documentation restrictions as administratively burdensome rather than safety-justified.