A new legal battle is underway following the U.S. Department of Transportation’s final rule tightening eligibility standards for nondomiciled commercial driver’s licenses, setting the stage for continued litigation in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
One day after the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration published its final rule formalizing restrictions on nondomiciled CDLs, a coalition of labor unions and individual drivers filed a petition for review with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The case, Jorge Lujan et al. v. FMCSA et al., No. 26-1032, challenges the rule’s legality and requests judicial review of the agency’s action.
The petitioners include the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), and truck drivers Jorge Rivera Lujan and Aleksei Semenovskii. They are represented by attorneys from the Public Citizen Litigation Group and in-house counsel for AFSCME.
The filing marks the latest chapter in an ongoing legal dispute that began in late 2025, when the FMCSA issued an emergency interim final rule addressing non-domiciled CDL screening standards. That interim rule was paused by the D.C. Circuit in November while the court reviewed claims that the agency had bypassed standard notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures.
The newly published final rule, dated February 11, incorporates many of the same restrictions contained in the interim measure. According to the FMCSA’s final regulatory text, the agency concluded that prior state-level practices created what it described as an “unacceptable bifurcated standard in driver vetting.”
Under the final rule, nondomiciled CDL eligibility is now limited to individuals holding specific nonimmigrant visa classifications — H-2A (temporary agricultural workers), H-2B (temporary nonagricultural workers), and E-2 (treaty investors). The rule eliminates employment authorization documents (EADs) as sufficient proof of eligibility and requires applicants to present an unexpired foreign passport along with designated Form I-94 documentation.
The FMCSA states that the rule aims to address what it characterized as oversight gaps in verifying foreign driving histories. According to the agency’s published explanation, domestic CDL applicants are subject to checks through the Commercial Driver’s License Information System (CDLIS) and the Problem Driver Pointer System (PDPS), while nondomiciled applicants previously did not undergo equivalent screening of foreign driving records. The agency asserted that this discrepancy potentially shielded serious violations or crash histories that occurred outside U.S. databases.
Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy defended the rule in a public statement accompanying the final action, stating that the administration intended to close what it described as a safety loophole involving foreign driver licensing standards.
The legal petition filed Thursday argues that the final rule remains legally flawed. Petitioners contend the agency exceeded its authority and failed to properly adhere to administrative rulemaking procedures. They are asking the D.C. Circuit to review and ultimately vacate the rule.
The court has not yet issued a response to the new petition, and no briefing schedule has been publicly announced as of this writing.
The regulatory changes follow months of heightened federal attention on nondomiciled CDLs. In 2025, the FMCSA initiated audits of state licensing agencies to assess compliance with federal credentialing standards. The agency’s enforcement efforts were tied to a broader executive order issued April 28, 2025, titled Enforcing Commonsense Rules of the Road for America’s Truck Drivers, which directed increased scrutiny of English-language proficiency and CDL vetting practices.
The agency also cited concerns following a fatal crash in Florida in August 2025 involving a commercial driver who authorities reported was not lawfully authorized to operate in the United States. That incident intensified federal review of certain state-level licensing practices and prompted threats to withhold federal highway funding from states deemed noncompliant with revised standards.
In its final rule publication, the FMCSA maintained that tightening documentation and eligibility criteria was necessary to ensure uniform safety screening across jurisdictions. The agency stated that nondomiciled CDL holders must meet equivalent vetting standards as domestic applicants and emphasized that licensing authorities are responsible for verifying lawful presence and visa classification before issuing credentials.
The petitioners, however, argue that the rule improperly narrows eligibility categories and may conflict with existing federal immigration statutes governing employment authorization. Their filing signals that the matter is far from resolved and that judicial review will determine whether the rule remains in effect or faces further modification.
The D.C. Circuit’s prior pause of the interim rule adds additional procedural complexity to the case. If the court determines that the final rule cures the alleged procedural deficiencies, it could allow the regulation to stand pending further litigation. Alternatively, the court could extend its review to address the substance of the new restrictions.
For now, the final rule remains published, and its implementation timeline will depend on any subsequent court orders or injunctions issued in response to the petition.
The FMCSA has not issued additional public comment in response to the latest filing. Agency counsel information was not immediately available in court records at the time of publication.
The case continues to draw national attention, as the nondomiciled CDL issue intersects transportation policy, immigration law, administrative procedure and highway safety oversight. The outcome will likely shape future federal guidance on commercial driver credentialing standards and the extent of state discretion in issuing nondomiciled licenses.
With the petition now formally before the D.C. Circuit, the regulatory fight moves from agency rulemaking into federal appellate litigation. Whether the court ultimately upholds or strikes down the new restrictions, the legal back-and-forth over non-domiciled CDLs appears set to continue.
