California, FMCSA clash in court over non-domiciled CDL

California and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration faced off in a Washington, D.C. Courtroom on Friday. The legal battle centers on the federal agency's order halting California's ability to issue new non-domiciled commercial driver's licenses and its withholding of some transportation funding.

The case, California Department of Motor Vehicles vs. U.S. Department of Transportation, was heard by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The core dispute is whether California cooperated sufficiently with an FMCSA audit of its CDL program and whether the federal agency acted legally in imposing its 'pause.' Non-domiciled CDLs are held overwhelmingly by immigrants.

The core dispute over expiration dates

A central issue is whether California violated federal law by issuing non-domiciled CDLs with expiration dates that extend beyond a driver's legal authorization to be in the United States. California argues no such federal rule exists. In its legal brief, the state said FMCSA 'pointed to no federal rule requiring CDLs to expire on or before the date of the driver’s legal presence documents.'

Simon Jerome, a Justice Department attorney representing FMCSA, countered this argument in court. He called it 'rather absurd that a credential for years and years, five years, eight years, could be issued with a document that expires tomorrow.' He stated this is the core of California's legal position.

The scope and authority of the federal 'pause'

The FMCSA's 'pause' applies only to new non-domiciled CDLs and the renewal of existing ones. California deputy attorney general Kristen Kido, representing the state DMV, argued the agency lacks the authority for this action. She told the court FMCSA does not have the power 'to institute a pre-enforcement, never-ending pause, particularly one that not only prohibits the DMV from issuing new licenses, but also prohibits DMV from correcting or renewing valid, unexpired licenses.'

Kido acknowledged the 'extreme consequences of the pause' but noted a full decertification of the state's CDL program, which would affect all commercial licenses, is not in place.

Audit compliance and timing arguments

Much of the oral arguments focused on the minutiae of California's responsiveness to the federal audit. The discussion examined whether the state's DMV replied in a timely manner to FMCSA's recommendations. Jerome engaged with Judge Cornelia Pillard about a letter the DMV sent to FMCSA on Christmas Eve, debating if the state's response could have been faster.

Jerome said questions of timing and responsiveness are 'the heart of this case.' He posed the question, 'Should FMCSA have given the DMV more time?'

Conflicting views on California's actions

California did cancel numerous non-domiciled CDLs following the audit. Kido argued this constituted 'substantial compliance with all of the relevant components of federal law.' She contended that missing a corrective action timeline alone should not be grounds for a noncompliance finding.

The federal government's view, outlined in its brief, is starkly different. FMCSA stated, 'The resulting systemic violations of federal and California law are undisputed.' The agency claims nearly one-third of non-domiciled CDLs issued by California-roughly 20,000 out of 65,000-were improper because the license expiration date exceeded the applicant's period of lawful presence.

Related legal battles and state actions

A similar legal argument will be heard next week in the same court in the case of Lujan vs. FMCSA. That case also challenges rules around issuing non-domiciled CDLs with durations beyond a person's legal immigration status.

Separately, North Carolina has received federal approval to resume issuing non-domiciled CDLs after making required program changes, according to the Raleigh News & Observer. However, FMCSA has since tightened restrictions on obtaining such licenses, which are part of the upcoming Lujan case arguments.

The funding cutoff for California was not extensively discussed during oral arguments but remains a background consequence of the dispute.