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 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.
Two Separate Problems California Is Conflating
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.
The Nuclear Option: Decertification
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.
Hellbound and Down 