California recently attempted to reissue thousands of non-domiciled CDLs that had been slated for cancellation, only to have federal authorities block that effort, according to a new OverDrive report. The move came amid weeks of negotiations and legal maneuvering between the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), part of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
According to state and local media reports, California planned to restore roughly 17,000 CDLs for immigrant drivers, many of whom hold work-authorized status such as asylum seekers or DACA recipients, after they received cancellation notices in early November. These drivers had been told their licenses could be revoked because of federal compliance concerns tied to audits of non-domiciled CDL issuance.
But federal regulators refused to authorize the reissuance on the grounds that the state must first come into full compliance with longstanding federal requirements that govern how non-domiciled CDLs are issued and renewed. The result is legal limbo for drivers and ongoing uncertainty for carriers that depend on them.
Why Did This Happen?
Image Credit: 5m3photos/Shutterstock.
The dispute traces back to federal actions taken in late 2025 to crack down on non-domiciled CDLs. They’re licenses held by people who are not domiciled in the state that issued them, although the spotlight is on immigrants who are legally authorized to work in the U.S.
In September, DOT Secretary Sean Duffy announced an emergency interim final rule that would severely limit the issuance and renewal of non-domiciled CDLs and commercial learner’s permits (CLPs). Under the new framework, only certain categories of employment-based visa holders, such as H-2A, H-2B and E-2 visa holders, would remain eligible, and strict federal checks would be required at every step.
The FMCSA also began a nationwide audit of state CDL programs and found widespread compliance failures, especially in states like California. In that audit, roughly 26% of sampled CDL records in California failed to meet federal requirements — including cases where the license remained valid after the driver’s lawful work authorization had expired.
DOT responded with enforcement letters demanding that California and other states immediately pause non-domiciled CDL issuance, audit all current holders, rescind improperly issued credentials, and reissue compliant ones.
Legal and Political Pushback
Image Credit: Virrage Images/Shutterstock.
The federal effort sparked political pushback on multiple fronts. A U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. paused enforcement of the FMCSA’s interim final rule, citing procedural issues with how it was issued. That decision temporarily restored the status quo for non-domiciled CDLs nationwide while litigation continues.
Various groups, including unions and advocacy organizations, filed lawsuits arguing that the federal rule unlawfully discriminates against workers with lawful work authorization, such as asylum seekers and DACA recipients, and deprives them of livelihood without proper rulemaking process.
Drivers affected by the policy change were just as alarmed. Many rely on trucking for their sole income and fear losing everything if their licenses are revoked. Some argue the crackdown unfairly targets lawfully present immigrants.
At the same time, several trucking industry groups have supported stronger controls, saying prior systems allowed improper licensing and posed safety risks.
Federal vs. State Authority
Beyond regulatory knots, the conflict has sweeping real-world ramifications. Thousands of immigrant drivers are in legal limbo, unsure if they can keep working. Trucking companies face uncertainty in staffing and planning, especially in sectors like freight hauling and school transportation. And California risks federal highway funding penalties or even decertification of its CDL program if compliance issues are not adequately addressed.
At the heart of this clash is a broader constitutional and administrative law dispute over whether and how states must enforce federal safety and immigration-related standards when issuing commercial credentials.
DOT officials argue that federal safety mandates require uniform compliance across state programs; California officials counter that they have the authority — and responsibility — to manage their licensing systems, especially when federal courts have stayed portions of the new rule.
With litigation ongoing and final regulations still under review, the situation remains fluid. Truckers, carriers, immigrant rights advocates, and policymakers are watching closely as this high-stakes regulatory showdown unfolds.