Another lawsuit is challenging the new non-domiciled CDL rule. This time, a group of truck drivers is going after Florida’s implementation of the updated requirements.
Non-domiciled CDLs have been a main target for the Department of Transportation under President Donald Trump. A nationwide audit raised concerns over how those licenses are issued, though the scope and impact are disputed.
That helped prompt the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to publish an interim final rule last September. An interim final rule allows an agency to implement a rule before public comments are submitted. The interim final rule imposed stricter restrictions on who can obtain a non-domiciled CDL.
Legal challenges to the interim final rule were swift. Last November, the D.C. Circuit Court paused enforcement of the non-domiciled CDL rule after finding FMCSA was likely to fail on three claims:
- Improperly issued the rule without consulting with the states
- Did not show good cause by having insufficient evidence of public safety concerns
- Rule is arbitrary and capricious, as data suggests non-domiciled CDL holders have a lower fatal crash rate
Even after a court blocked enforcement of the interim rule, FMCSA moved forward with the rulemaking process. On March 16, the final rule went into effect, with only minor modifications to the interim final rule.
While the rulemaking process was underway, FMCSA sent letters to several states warning they were not complying with non-domiciled CDL requirements. States were told to take corrective action or risk losing federal funding. Some states, including Florida, responded by halting issuance and renewals of non-domiciled CDLs.
That combination of federal pressure and Florida’s continued pause is why 19 drivers are now suing the state.
Non-domiciled CDL rule is ‘catastrophic’
The lawsuit claims that both the federal rule and Florida’s implementation of the rule are unconstitutional.
Plaintiffs argue that FMCSA’s non-domiciled rule is unlawful because it bypassed the rulemaking process. Arguments are similar to those made in D.C. Circuit Court’s order to pause the rule. Essentially, the lawsuit claims FMCSA ignored industry impact and failed to show real safety justification.
Non-domiciled drivers also claim that they were not afforded due process by effectively losing their CDLs without hearings or individualized review. Additionally, restricting non-domiciled CDLs to only H-2A, H-2B and E-2 visa holders raised equal protection concerns by excluding entire categories of legally authorized workers. Specifically, excluding DACA recipients, recognized asylees, refugees and others with valid federal work authorization violated that right while also being arbitrary.
Since Florida’s pause of non-domiciled CDLs is tied to the federal rule and related enforcement actions, the lawsuit argues that action is unlawful as well.
Plaintiffs in the case claim that the non-domiciled rule has caused significant harm, including:
- Loss of livelihood
- Financial devastation
- Loss of professional standing
- Deprivation of property and liberty interest
- Stigma and reputational harm
“The combined effect of (FMCSA’s) and (Florida’s) actions has been catastrophic for Plaintiffs: they cannot work, they cannot earn a living, they face financial ruin, and they have been deprived of vested property and liberty interests without due process of law — all without any individualized determination of fault, misconduct, or safety concern,” the lawsuit states. “Plaintiffs have lost employment, defaulted on mortgages and other financial obligations, and been unable to provide for their families. The harm is ongoing and irreparable.”
The lawsuit asks the court to declare the final rule and Florida’s continued pause unconstitutional and to require the state to resume issuance and renewals of non-domiciled CDLs under the rules prior to the new rules. LL
Credit: Source link
