D.C. Circuit Hears Oral Argument in Challenge to FMCSA Non-Domiciled CDL Rule  

Earlier today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit heard oral argument in Rivera Lujan v. FMCSA, which challenges the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s (FMCSA) rule that sharply restricts eligibility for non-domiciled commercial driver’s licenses (CDLs). 

The D.C. Circuit previously stayed an interim version of the rule. FMCSA later issued a final rule in February, which took effect in March. In May, a divided panel declined to stay the final rule, while expediting the case for a decision on the merits. Today’s argument marked the court’s first full consideration of whether the final rule is lawful. 

FMCSA has defended the rule on the ground that states often cannot verify foreign driving histories, and that state DMV officials had difficulty administering the prior framework tied to employment authorization documents. The plaintiffs argue that those concerns do not justify excluding broad groups of otherwise work-authorized drivers, including experienced drivers with substantial U.S. driving records. They further contend that FMCSA failed to adequately account for the disruption the rule would cause to employers and essential service providers. 

At argument, the judges pressed whether the new framework actually solves the problems FMCSA identified. The questioning focused in part on whether the limited visa categories FMCSA chose to exempt actually correspond to driving-history checks the agency says justify the rule, and whether the new system is in fact easier for state DMVs to administer. The discussion also highlighted the tension between those concerns and a rule that sidelines experienced drivers with years of U.S. driving history. 

Colombo & Hurd filed an amicus brief on behalf of Waste Pro to help ensure the court considers those real-world effects, particularly the impact on sanitation providers and other essential public services that depend on experienced CDL drivers. The firm’s brief highlights that these employers cannot readily replace drivers who lose eligibility under the new framework. As detailed in the filing, Waste Pro has already had to rely on overtime, supervisors covering routes, route adjustments, and reassignment of affected drivers into helper roles to maintain regular collection services. 

The case has important implications for employers and communities that depend on experienced commercial drivers to provide essential public services. We will continue to monitor the litigation and its potential operational impact.