Jorge Rivera Lujan, the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit against the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, contends that he is among the “collateral damage” from the agency’s non-domiciled CDL rule.
Rivera Lujan has lived in the United States since he was 2 years old, and he maintains lawful presence in Utah as a DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) recipient. For most of his adult life, he’s been a truck driver. But he says that he could lose his CDL at the end of the year if FMCSA’s final rule isn’t overturned.
On March 16, a final rule took effect to clean up the CDL process, particularly for non-domiciled CDLs. Under the rule, an Employment Authorization Document is no longer enough to obtain a non-domiciled CDL. Additionally, asylum seekers, asylees, refugees and DACA recipients are ineligible. FMCSA estimated that there were about 200,000 non-domiciled CDL holders and that the final rule would force about 194,000 to “exit the freight market.” Momentum for the rule started after several fatal truck crashes involving non-domiciled CDL holders received considerable media attention in 2025.
Rivera Lujan spoke with Land Line recently to share his story and clear up what he believes is some confusion about what FMCSA’s non-domiciled CDL rule does.
First, the trucker from Utah said that he thinks many people are lumping English-proficiency regulations and the non-domiciled CDL rule together. Regulations have long required CDL holders to possess basic English skills to ensure they can read road signs and communicate with law enforcement. Last year, the Department of Transportation called for the regulation to be enforced and for violators to be placed out of service.
The non-domiciled CDL rule, however, focuses more on immigration status and FMCSA’s ability to vet the drivers.
“I speak better English than Spanish,” said Rivera Lujan, who spoke fluent English in his interview with Land Line. “If a CDL test were given to me today in Spanish, I don’t think I could pass it. I might be able to pass it in Spanish or maybe not, but I guarantee I can pass it in English.”
Rivera Lujan was raised in California. After DACA status was granted in 2012 to certain people who came to the United States as children and met various requirements, Rivera Lujan followed his brother into trucking in 2014. He worked under his brother for a few years before becoming an owner-operator in 2017. In 2019, he said he bought a new truck and trailer, both of which are now paid off.
He is now in his 30s and is married with a family. He said he would like to become a U.S. citizen but that he doesn’t have a current pathway.
Rivera Lujan’s oldest daughter is 18. When she turns 21, she can petition for him to become a legal permanent resident. If granted, it could take another five years before he could pass his naturalization test and become a U.S. citizen.
“I just want people to know that today I’m a DACA recipient,” Rivera Lujan said. “Today I’m not an American citizen, but I will be an American citizen one day. It’s just a matter of when. I’m just like you. Just not on paper … I pay the same taxes. I speak the same language. I share the same culture.”
If Rivera Lujan is unable to renew his CDL, he said he could either hire a U.S. citizen to drive his truck or find a new occupation.
The lawsuit
Public Citizen, which is representing non-domiciled CDL holders including DACA recipients like Rivera Lujan, has called FMCSA’s rule “arbitrary” and said that it is not rooted in safety.
The plaintiffs filed a brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Monday, June 15.
“The rule’s exclusion of immigrants from holding CDLs exceeds FMCSA’s statutory authority and is arbitrary and capricious,” the attorneys for the plaintiffs wrote. “Although FMCSA asserts that its underlying concern is to ensure safety, FMCSA admits it has no evidence that the immigrants excluded by the rule drive any less safely than people whom FMCSA continues to allow to hold CDLs.”
Additionally, the plaintiffs contend that the rule will destroy the livelihoods of many CDL holders and cause harm to employers, school districts and other essential public services.
Although FMCSA’s formal response brief is due next month, the agency has already said that the rule is critical to highway safety because thousands of drivers were issued non-domiciled CDLs without proper vetting.
When a U.S. driver applies for a CDL, their driving history is reviewed. The agency contends that this is often not possible for applicants from other countries.
The plaintiffs argue that the safety rationale does not apply to DACA recipients, who have resided in the U.S. since childhood.
However, the three-judge panel that denied the plaintiffs’ emergency motion in May said that allowing only DACA recipients would create administrative problems.
“To begin with, allowing DACA recipients to use EADs (Employment Authorization Documents) to document eligibility would present substantial administrability and compliance problems,” the judges wrote. “State licensing clerks cannot accurately distinguish whether an EAD code is a permissible basis for issuance of a non-domiciled CDL to a DACA recipient. In particular, clerks mistake DACA coding for other codes that indicate different statuses like Deferred Action or Alien Granted Deferred Action. This would create the same problems with the improper issuance of non-domiciled CDLs that the final rule sought to prevent. Some of these mistakes – like issuing the wrong category of license to an alien – would implicate primarily compliance concerns. But others – like issuing CDLs to non-DACA Deferred Action aliens with potentially significant foreign driving histories – would implicate the safety concerns at the core of the final rule.”
FMCSA’s response brief is due July 15. Final briefs are due Aug. 5. Oral arguments have not been scheduled. LL
Credit: Source link
