FMCSA, New York ready to rumble over non-domiciled CDL rules

The state of New York and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration are headed toward oral arguments at the end of next month in their legal battle over the federal cutoff of funds to the Empire State over a conflict regarding the state’s issuance of non-domiciled CDLs and Commercial Learning Permits (CLPs).

With FMCSA having filed its brief to the Second Circuit U. S. Court of Appeals last week, both sides have spelled out their case in preparation for oral arguments on September 28 in lower Manhattan.

The key issue, according to the state’s brief, is just how long a non-domiciled CDL issued by New York–or by extension, any state–can stay in effect if its duration does not line up with how long the non-domiciled CDL holder is legally permitted to be in the U. S.

, as the vast majority of non-domiciled CDL holders are foreign nationals in the country, legally or not. While New York’s brief makes that the key issue, it is somewhat less emphasized by FMCSA in its filing.

Following the April decision by the Department of Transportation (DOT) to withhold approximately $73 million in federal funds as a result of the dispute with New York, the state quickly filed suit in the Second Circuit challenging the action.

While the core of the federal government’s argument was known in April when the action was taken by the DOT, the state responded that the action was “political payback.” What does the rule say? It is in the brief filed by the state that some meat is put on New York’s objections.

Its key argument is that the action by the DOT is enforcing a rule that does not exist.

In a December 2025 “preliminary determination of substantial noncompliance,” according to the state’s brief, FMCSA asserts that a review of New York practices had “uncovered evidence of systemic policy, procedural and programming errors” in a sampling of New York licenses.

“In particular, FMCSA observed that 101 of those licenses included expiration dates that exceeded the period of validity shown on the drivers’ lawful presence documents presented at the time of license issuance,” New York said in its brief.

“Citing no authority, FMCSA asserted that (New York’s Department of Motor Vehicles) was required to ‘make the period of validity of the non-domiciled commercial learning permits or CDL less than or equal to the period of validity of the driver’s lawful presence document(s).” But there is nothing in the law to require that, according to the state.

“FMCSA points to no regulatory text that affirmatively required the State to match license expiration dates with the lawful-presence documentation provided with drivers’ CDL applications,” New York says in its brief. “The principal provision that FMCSA relies upon (which it says can be found in 49 C. F. R. § 384. 212) does not address expiration dates.

Nor does any other regulatory provision incorporated therein.” Implicit or explicit New York sums up the FMCSA argument in its brief.

“FMCSA nevertheless claims that this supposed expiration-matching rule was implicit in its prior regulations because a contrary interpretation would render ‘meaningless’ and ‘inconsequential’ the regulatory provisions that require CDL and CLP applicants to verify their lawful presence at the time of license issuance.”

But earlier Supreme Court precedents on funding requirements must be made “clearly,” with New York putting that word in italics. Citing another part of federal law, § 383. 73(f)(2), New York argues that “state procedures” for the issuance of CDLs for domiciled and non-domiciled persons, and by extension their expiration date, can not be any different.

“Notably, the requirement that a CDL issued by a state be valid for no more than eight years… presumptively applies to both nondomiciled and domiciled licenses alike,” the state says. The state does not argue anywhere that the CDLs in question did not exceed the length of a recipient’s legal window for staying in the U. S.

Its argument is that it isn’t part of the law. But the DOT’s brief goes right to that issue in its brief.

When the agency conducted an audit of New York’s program, it says in its brief filed last week, it found that “more than half turned out to have been issued with expiration dates well past the period for which the license-holders could demonstrate, at the point they applied for the CDLs, that they were lawfully present in the United States.

In several cases, CDLs were issued for seven or eight years longer than the applicants’ demonstrated periods of lawful presence.” DOT’s brief says it was told by New York that the CDL’s had “overlong expiration dates” because its system doesn’t check how long a holder of a license is allowed to stay in the U. S.

No cooperation Another charge in the DOT brief is that New York refused to work with FMCSA to get to a point where the federal agency would withdraw its determination that the state was out of compliance with federal law. FMCSA’s argument in its brief about what the law says is in its summary