Some judicial skepticism of non-domiciled rule in Lujan arguments

During oral arguments in the Lujan vs. FMCSA case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, Simon Jerome, representing the Department of Transportation, faced more probing questions from the judges compared to Wendy Liu, arguing for the coalition of groups opposing recent Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration changes.

The case revolves around the new rule that has made it more difficult for non-domiciled drivers to obtain Commercial Driver's Licenses (CDLs). Jerome explained that the changes aimed to close a safety gap due to the inaccessibility of foreign driving records. However, the judges questioned whether the narrowing of acceptable documentation and eligibility standards for non-domiciled drivers is reasonable.

They raised concerns about the states' ability to protect their citizens and residents and the federal government's trust in their safety measures. Jerome argued that the ability of states and employers to check safety records made the DOT's rationale "just doesn't make any sense to me." The judges also questioned whether non-domiciled drivers who have been driving in the U.S. for ten years or more could grandfather in under the new rule.