(7713Photography/Getty Images)
January 29, 2026 11:06 AM, EST
Key Takeaways:
CATA originally filed its lawsuit against California DMV and director Steve Gordon and FMCSA and Administrator Derek Barrs.The court action asserted some CATA members have valid California non-domiciled CDLs that will soon expire and cannot be renewed due to the pause, FMCSA recently permanently took back $158 million in highway funding from California for failing to revoke illegally issued non-domiciled CDLs by Jan. 5.
[Stay on top of transportation news: Get TTNews in your inbox.]
A federal judge refused a request by Chinese American truckers to force the California Department of Motor Vehicles to resume issuing non-domiciled commercial driver licenses.
Judge Jesus G. Bernal in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Jan. 20 denied an emergency motion sought eight days earlier by attorney Michael Chen on behalf of a group called the Chinese American Truckers Association.
Originally, CATA brought a case against the California DMV and its director, Steve Gordon, in his official capacity, as well as the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and Derek Barrs in his role as agency administrator.
CATA had challenged both the FMCSA’s regulatory enforcement halting California’s issuance of non-domiciled CDLs and the DMV’s subsequent pause. The court action asserted that some of its members have valid California non-domiciled CDLs that will soon expire and cannot be renewed due to the pause, while others cannot replace their lost or stolen valid licenses.
CATA dropped the action against FMCSA after the agency refuted in a 21-page court document several legal issues contained in the court request. FMCSA said the plaintiffs “challenged the wrong agency actions in the wrong court” when any such request should have been put before a court of appeals. Another legal action against FMCSA for revised non-domiciled CDLs is stalled in U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
The agency also took issue with CATA including FMCSA when it sought court “relief” to force the issuance of new non-domiciled licenses when only states, like the California DMV, can issue CDLs since FMCSA does not issue driver licenses.
CATA then revised its request to only target the California DMV.
The California Attorney General’s office represented the DMV and Gordon. It told the court about the ongoing tussle between the state and FMCSA over non-domiciled CDLs, issuance problems and FMCSA threats for noncompliance with federal regulations.
Deputy Attorney General Jay C. Russell said the requested order sought to renew or extend expiring and/or lost non-domiciled licenses but omitted mentioning CDL holders, whose licenses DMV determined were deficient under California law. After a federal audit, the state identified 17,000 illegally issued non-domiciled CDLs. FMCSA recently permanently took back $158 million in highway funding from California for failing to revoke these licenses by Jan. 5.
Johan Land of Samsara explores how fleets are adopting AI to revolutionize their safety programs. Tune in above or by going to RoadSigns.ttnews.com.
FMCSA then “warned that California’s entire commercial driver’s license program could be decertified,” Russell stated. Trying to force California in court to resume issuing these CDLs “is the very kind of action” DMV wanted to resume in mid-December but was unable to because of FMCSA’s threat of sanctions.
“Because FMCSA, not DMV, is the impediment to such relief, no temporary restraining order should issue against DMV. And if the court determines that an order should issue against DMV, that order must be administrable and must not prejudice DMV in its efforts to meet the terms of the corrective action plan required by FMCSA, to protect DMV’s licensing authority, and to retain the federal highway funding necessary for safe operation of California’s highways,” Russell stated.
Ultimately, the judge in Riverside, Calif., denied the motion after a Jan. 20 hearing and reviewing case documents. Bernal noted CATA failed to demonstrate a temporary restraining order’s basic requirements: to avert “immediate and irreparable injury, loss or damage,” and show legal grounds exist to prevail in court to obtain a permanent order requiring the DMV to resume issuing non-domiciled CDLs.
The judge explained: “Plaintiff lists nine members who are affected by the non-domiciled CDL issuance pause. While the court is sympathetic to those individuals who are allegedly impacted by the pause, it cannot be that the interests of those nine individuals (and even many other non-domiciled CDL holders seeking replacement or renewal) outweighs the state’s and public’s interest in continued issuance capacity for all CDLs in the state, along with more than $300 million in highway funding” at risk for noncompliance.
He added that even if he issued a temporary restraining order, “if California began to comply and FMCSA subsequently decertified the CDL program, any of plaintiff’s members or other non-domiciled CDL holders who do not request renewals or replacements before decertification would be no better off than they are now.”