Summary
The D.C. Circuit granted emergency motions to stay pending review of an FMCSA interim final rule narrowing the circumstances in which states may issue or renew non-domiciled commercial driver’s licenses. The court concluded that petitioners were likely to succeed on claims concerning the statutory state-consultation requirement, the Administrative Procedure Act’s good-cause exception, and arbitrary-and-capricious review, and that the remaining stay factors favored relief. Circuit Judge Henderson dissented, favoring expedited merits review rather than a stay.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether petitioners satisfied the requirements for an emergency stay pending review.
- Whether petitioners were likely to succeed on their claim that FMCSA violated 49 U.S.C. § 31308 by issuing the rule without prior consultation with the states.
- Whether petitioners were likely to succeed on their claim that FMCSA failed to satisfy the APA's narrow good-cause exception for dispensing with notice and comment.
- Whether petitioners were likely to succeed on their claim that FMCSA acted arbitrarily and capriciously.
- Whether petitioners demonstrated irreparable harm, favorable equities, and a public interest supporting a stay of the rule in its entirety.
Holdings
- Petitioners satisfied the stringent requirements for a stay pending court review, and the emergency motions for stay were granted.
- Petitioners were likely to prevail on their claim that FMCSA improperly issued the rule without prior consultation with the states as required by 49 U.S.C. § 31308.
- Petitioners were likely to prevail on their argument that FMCSA failed to satisfy the narrow good-cause exception permitting issuance of the rule without notice and comment.
- Petitioners were likely to succeed on their claim that FMCSA acted arbitrarily and capriciously in issuing the rule.
- The circumstances warranted restraining the interim final rule in its entirety rather than narrowing the stay.
Key quotations
“Petitioners have satisfied the stringent requirements for a stay pending court review.” (1)
“That rationale is plainly flawed because § 31308 contains no exceptions for insubstantial costs or impracticability.” (2)
“there is generally no public interest in the perpetuation of unlawful agency action” (3)
Factual background
The FMCSA issued an interim final rule restricting state issuance of non-domiciled commercial driver's licenses to foreign-domiciled individuals with specified immigration classifications. The agency justified bypassing notice and comment on public-safety grounds and declined prior consultation with the states based on its view that consultation was impracticable and unnecessary under the circumstances. The court relied on the agency's data concerning the proportion of non-domiciled CDL holders and fatal crashes, as well as the rule's potential effects on current CDL holders, businesses, and road safety.
Procedural history
The FMCSA promulgated the interim final rule on September 29, 2025. Petitioners sought emergency stays in the D.C. Circuit, which entered an administrative stay on November 10, 2025, considered opposition, replies, and amicus submissions, and then dissolved the administrative stay while granting the emergency motions for stay pending review.