California Expected to Defy Federal Pressure, and Reissue 17,000 Non-Domiciled CDLs

California's expected decision to restore contested licenses sets stage for constitutional showdown over CDL authority

California is expected to begin reissuing approximately 17,000 non-domiciled commercial driver’s licenses that the state had planned to revoke following federal enforcement pressure. The decision comes despite ongoing corrective action requirements from FMCSA [Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration] and raises fundamental questions about federal enforcement authority when a state openly defies compliance directives.

State transportation officials confirmed to sources that the Department of Motor Vehicles will begin restoring the contested licenses to immigrant drivers who received 60-day cancellation notices on November 6. The state has not clarified the specific process but points to the D.C. Circuit Court’s November 13 emergency stay of FMCSA’s interim final rule restricting non-domiciled CDL eligibility.

What California apparently misunderstands, or is choosing to ignore, is that the court stay addressed only the September 29 interim final rule. It did not address the separate compliance failures FMCSA documented during its 2025 Annual Program Review, which found that approximately 25% of California’s non-domiciled CDLs were improperly issued under regulations that existed before the emergency rule was ever published.

The federal government threatened to withhold more than $150 million in highway funding from California over these pre-existing violations. Those threats remain fully in effect regardless of the court’s stay of the new rule.

Understanding California’s legal exposure requires separating two distinct issues that the state appears to be deliberately merging.

Problem One: The Interim Final Rule. On September 29, 2025, FMCSA issued an emergency interim final rule titled “Restoring Integrity to the Issuance of Non-Domiciled Commercial Drivers’ Licenses.” This rule dramatically restricted the eligibility of non-domiciled CDL holders to H-2A, H-2B, and E-2 visas, excluding asylum seekers, refugees, and DACA recipients. The D.C. Circuit Court stayed this rule on November 13, finding petitioners were “likely to succeed” on claims that FMCSA violated federal law, acted arbitrarily, and failed to justify bypassing standard rulemaking procedures. With this rule stayed, states can theoretically continue issuing non-domiciled CDLs under pre-September 29 regulations, except for states under corrective action plans.

Problem Two: Pre-Existing Compliance Failures. FMCSA’s 2025 Annual Program Review found California had been violating federal regulations that existed long before the interim final rule. The agency documented systemic failures: CDLs issued with expiration dates extending years beyond drivers’ lawful presence authorization, licenses issued to Mexican nationals who are prohibited from holding non-domiciled CDLs (unless under DACA), and inadequate verification procedures. These violations triggered a preliminary determination of substantial noncompliance under 49 CFR 384.307, a process entirely separate from the stayed interim final rule.

California remains subject to a corrective action plan addressing these pre-existing violations. The court stay doesn’t change that. FMCSA’s November 13 guidance was explicit: states “subject to a corrective action plan” must maintain their pauses on non-domiciled CDL issuance until demonstrating compliance with pre-rule regulations.

Under 49 U.S.C. § 31312, FMCSA has authority to decertify a state’s entire CDL program if the state is found in “substantial noncompliance” with federal requirements. Decertification would prohibit California from issuing, renewing, transferring, or upgrading any commercial learner’s permits or commercial driver’s licenses, not just non-domiciled credentials, until FMCSA determines that the state has corrected its deficiencies.

The consequences would be immediate and severe. Every new driver in California’s CDL pipeline would freeze. CDL schools would halt operations. Testing would stop. Carriers would face weeks or months of disruption in recruiting new drivers. The ripple effects would devastate one of the nation’s most critical freight corridors.

FMCSA recently threatened Pennsylvania with decertification after an Uzbek terror suspect was found holding a Pennsylvania-issued CDL. The agency gave the state 30 days to respond and warned that failure to correct deficiencies could result in losing issuance authority entirely. California’s defiance appears far more egregious; the state is not merely failing to correct problems but actively moving to restore licenses that federal auditors determined were improperly issued.

Here’s where California’s gambit becomes particularly problematic. Commercial driver’s licenses aren’t purely state credentials; they’re federal credentials issued through a partnership with states. The Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 established minimum standards that all states must meet. When a state issues a CDL, other states recognize that credential based on the assumption that it was issued in compliance with federal standards.

If California reissues non-domiciled CDLs that federal auditors have determined don’t comply with federal regulations, those credentials may not be valid for interstate operation. A driver holding a California CDL issued in violation of federal requirements could face enforcement action in any other state, and carriers who dispatch those drivers could face liability exposure.

Under 49 CFR 384.405, decertification prohibits a state from performing any CLP or CDL transactions. Even short of full decertification, FMCSA could issue guidance that CDLs issued by a noncompliant state during the noncompliance period are not valid for interstate commerce. Other states could refuse to recognize California’s credentials. The Commercial Driver’s License Information System (CDLIS), which enables interstate verification, could flag California licenses.

The question isn’t whether FMCSA has authority to act; 49 U.S.C. § 31312 is unambiguous. The question is whether the agency has the political will to exercise that authority against the nation’s most populous state.

California’s argument rests on several claims. The state contends that the 17,000 licenses with mismatched expiration dates represent “clerical errors” rather than substantive violations. State officials point out that the work authorizations underlying these licenses remain valid; the DMV simply failed to align CDL expiration dates with employment authorization document expiration dates.

With the court stay in effect, California argues it can now correct those date mismatches and reissue compliant credentials. The state maintains that drivers with valid work authorization who pass the knowledge, skills, and medical tests should be able to obtain properly dated CDLs under pre-September 29 regulations.

This argument sidesteps FMCSA’s core findings. The agency didn’t merely identify date mismatches; it documented systemic failures in California’s verification procedures, including the issuance of licenses to Mexican nationals who were prohibited from holding non-domiciled CDLs. California’s October 26 response to FMCSA acknowledged finding 20,000 non-domiciled CDLs with expiration dates exceeding drivers’ lawful presence. Still, it refused to revoke them, arguing the state hadn’t violated federal regulations as they existed before the interim final rule.

FMCSA’s November 13 response rejected this interpretation as “erroneous,” noting that “the regulatory universe of non-domiciled CLPs and CDLs is premised on the basic notion that a non-domiciled driver’s commercial motor vehicle driving privileges cannot extend beyond that driver’s lawful presence in the United States.”

Behind the legal and regulatory frameworks are real people whose livelihoods hang in the balance. Many of the affected 17,000 drivers are Sikh men who fled persecution in India and sought asylum in the United States. The transportation and logistics industry has been a major employer for this community; approximately 150,000 Sikhs work in trucking nationwide, with California hosting the largest U.S. Sikh population.

Amarjit Singh, a 41-year-old truck owner-operator in Livermore, represents the personal dimension of this crisis. His work authorization extends through 2029. He invested $160,000 in his truck in 2022, faces $4,000 monthly payments, and supports two young children. When Singh heard California would reissue his license, he prayed in gratitude. His wife cried.

“It’s going to save my life, and it’s going to save my business,” Singh told KQED.

Singh’s relief may be premature. If FMCSA determines that California’s reissued licenses don’t comply with federal regulations, Singh and thousands of drivers like him could face the same uncertainty all over again, potentially worse, if other states refuse to recognize California credentials or if FMCSA moves toward decertification.

This confrontation unfolds against a backdrop of intense political conflict between California and the Trump administration. Governor Gavin Newsom has positioned himself as a leading Democratic opponent of federal immigration enforcement. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy has made non-domiciled CDL enforcement a signature initiative, personally announcing enforcement actions against California and warning of consequences.

When a California asylum seeker named Jashanpreet Singh crashed his truck on I-10 on October 21, killing three people, Duffy issued a “bombshell report” directly blaming California for breaking federal law. “My prayers are with the families of the victims of this tragedy,” Duffy said. “It would have never happened if Gavin Newsom had followed our new rules. California broke the law and now three people are dead.”

California countered that the Jashanpreet Singh case involved the automatic removal of an age-based restriction, not a discretionary upgrade. The state argued it had complied with the then-existing regulations. FMCSA rejected this defense.

The political stakes guarantee that neither side will back down easily. For the Trump administration, allowing California to defy federal CDL requirements would undermine its entire enforcement framework. For California, capitulating would validate what advocates call a “contrived emergency” targeting immigrant workers.

FMCSA faces a choice. The agency can accept California’s interpretation that the court stay permits license reissuance, effectively allowing the state to sidestep compliance requirements. Or it can enforce its position that California remains under corrective action and must demonstrate compliance with pre-rule regulations before resuming non-domiciled CDL issuance.

The enforcement tools are clear. FMCSA can withhold federal highway funding, up to $75.5 million in fiscal year 2027, with amounts doubling in subsequent years. The agency can issue a final determination of substantial noncompliance. And it can decertify California’s CDL program entirely, prohibiting the state from issuing any commercial driving credentials until deficiencies are corrected.

Given the current political dynamics, FMCSA moving toward decertification seems more likely than backing down. The agency has already threatened to decertify Pennsylvania for less egregious violations. Texas, Colorado, South Dakota, and Washington have all received compliance warnings. If California can openly defy federal requirements without consequence, the entire federal-state CDL partnership becomes meaningless.

For carriers operating in California or employing drivers with California non-domiciled CDLs, the uncertainty continues. The safest course is to monitor FMCSA guidance closely, document immigration status verification for all non-domiciled drivers, and prepare for the possibility that California credentials face additional scrutiny or rejection in other states.

Underlying this entire controversy is a question the D.C. Circuit Court’s stay didn’t resolve: Who ultimately controls commercial driver licensing standards in the United States?

The Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 established federal minimum standards that states must meet. But states actually administer licensing programs. When a state believes federal standards are wrong, whether procedurally flawed, as the court found with the interim final rule, or substantively discriminatory, as advocates argue, what mechanisms exist to resolve the conflict?

The funding withholding and decertification provisions in 49 U.S.C. § § 31314 and 31312 provide federal enforcement tools. But using those tools against California would create massive disruptions to interstate commerce and potentially strand hundreds of thousands of drivers. The practical consequences may constrain federal enforcement regardless of legal authority.

Meanwhile, 17,000 drivers wait to learn whether the licenses California plans to reissue will actually let them work. Carriers wait to learn whether those credentials will be recognized outside California. And the rest of the trucking industry watches to see whether federal CDL standards mean anything at all when a state decides to ignore them.

After the disaster at Appomattox, the federal government announced it would decide the shape and size of mudflaps on trucks on both federal and state highways.

They called it “federal supremacy” - a very narrowly defined clause in the United States Constitution.

Now we are seeing blue states advocating the concerns of Thomas Jefferson and Jefferson Davis over “consent of the governed.”

This is an interesting development.

As long as the illegals with their special CA licenses stay within CA borders and the state assumes complete iability responsibility for issuing them such licenses, have at it.
Caught outside of CA with such licenses, immediately deport em. IF they cause a wreck, sue the state of CA for all they’re worth...
CA government really ought be banned from participating in a sane civilized society until they grow up, shitcan ther moronic communists.... Spit.

The idiot governor - who is ferried around in a caravan of three armored limos does not care. He believes he is above the Feds.

These illegal drivers issued CDLs by California, Oregon and New York, many of whom can neither speak nor read English are causing havoc all across the country.

We have enough dangerous drivers on our highways, we don't need to add to it:

Recent examples:

Biden Illegal Charged in Fatal Tennessee Bus Crash Was Granted Commercial Driver’s License by Sanctuary New York

Alleged Illegal Alien Truck Driver Arrested for Killing American Citizen in Sanctuary Washington

Washington Officials Ignore ICE Detainer, Release Previously-Deported Big Rig Driver ‘Who Caused Multi-Car Pileup’ Involving School Bus

It looks like the sexual deviants of Californica are about to turn Highway Patrolmen into their newest hated Federal Agent Nazis. The South of the Border subhuman gangs will be trashing Highway Patrol cruisers and shooting the patrolmen for their gringo DemonRATS massah who stock them with Government ATM Debit cards as long as they continue “voting” and attacking and killing Americans for their DemonRAT massahs. They are building the Evil Amerika.

Never believe anything from CaCaLand politicos at face value. Pretend you are standing in front of your chocolate smeared 40year old asking about who ate the chocolate icing off the cake.

Drop your standards on interacting with politicos — require them to prove trustworthiness.

This is how critical illegals are to Democrats staying in power, this despite that so many Republicans have fled the State. They know it's a $hit show. They'll latch onto every demographic they can get.

The most expensive damage they are inflicting is environmental, particularly in terms of fuel loads at the expense of the post-disturbance landscapes they had shaped. The State did it by killing ranching in favor of developers. It will take over a century to cleanse the seed bank of landscapes hence invaded by brush and trees, particularly exotics such as French Broom. I remember telling a Shasta County supervisor that at the rate they were going the volcano would bloom yellow in spring. His face turned white, but that won't fix the mountain. :-)

The guy and his family probably live in the truck. The loan for his rig was probably arranged through an Indian-gangster loan shark, who then also acts as a truck-broker and takes a cut of that too.

It's particularly prevalent in Canada. You see the families washing in truck stops, and dumping buckets of human waste by the side of the road

This is one more example of how the Democrat Party, high from having stolen the 2020 elections and gotten away with it, proceeded as if the two-party system was history and that they’d remain in power forever (see FBI, State Dept., etc).

If nothing else their illegal CDL drivers must be confined to California itself, facing arrest and confiscation of trucks and cargo if caught operating outside the state.

The state has not clarified the specific process but points to the D.C. Circuit Court’s November 13 emergency stay of FMCSA’s interim final rule restricting non-domiciled CDL eligibility.

Folks,

The are pointing to the “temp emergency stay”.

Don’t get excited, the ball is still in play.................

enjoy the game.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.