California DMV CDL Revocations Spark Lawsuit, Highlight Tensions Between Rule of Law and Economic Reality

By Michael Phillips | California Bay News

A sweeping class-action lawsuit against the California Department of Motor Vehicles has thrown a spotlight on a growing conflict between federal enforcement, state administration, and the livelihoods of tens of thousands of commercial truck drivers—many of them Punjabi Sikh immigrants who now form a backbone of California’s trucking workforce.

According to a December 25 report by the Los Angeles Times, more than 20,000 commercial driver’s licenses (CDLs) are set to be revoked beginning January 5, 2026, following a federal audit that found California issued licenses extending beyond drivers’ authorized periods of stay in the United States. State officials say they are acting under pressure from Washington. Plaintiffs argue the crisis stems from California’s own clerical errors—and that drivers are paying the price.

Federal Crackdown After Fatal Crash

The controversy accelerated in 2025 after a deadly crash in Florida involving a non-citizen commercial driver prompted the Trump administration to scrutinize states with allegedly lax CDL practices. The Department of Transportation, under Secretary Sean Duffy, ordered audits of seven states, including California.

Federal reviewers concluded that the California Department of Motor Vehicles had issued thousands of non-domiciled CDLs with expiration dates that did not align with drivers’ immigration documents—often because DMV systems failed to properly match federal authorization dates.

On November 6, the DMV mailed 60-day cancellation notices to roughly 17,000 drivers. By late December, the number had grown to more than 20,000. A short-lived plan to reissue corrected licenses was reportedly halted after federal regulators warned California it could lose more than $150 million in highway funding.

Lawsuit Claims Due Process Violations

The lawsuit, filed in Alameda County Superior Court, is led by the Sikh Coalition and the Asian Law Caucus, with support from a major national law firm. It argues that California law requires the DMV to correct administrative mistakes or allow drivers to immediately reapply—rather than imposing blanket cancellations without hearings or appeals.

Munmeeth Kaur, legal director of the Sikh Coalition, said the revocations threaten “devastating unemployment” for families who built their lives around trucking careers, warning of ripple effects throughout supply chains, especially during peak agricultural and holiday shipping seasons.

The DMV has declined to comment publicly, citing pending litigation.

A Workforce California Depends On

Punjabi Sikh immigrants have become indispensable to West Coast trucking, particularly in California’s Central Valley and along major interstate corridors. Industry groups estimate that Sikhs represent up to 40 percent of truck drivers in some California regions, hauling fresh produce, consumer goods, and essential supplies.

Trucking has long appealed to Sikh immigrants because it offers economic independence while accommodating religious practices such as wearing turbans, maintaining uncut hair, and observing daily prayers—practices often restricted in other workplaces. Over decades, Sikh drivers have helped offset chronic driver shortages as older American drivers retired.

From a center-right perspective, these contributions matter—but they do not negate the importance of lawful licensing and public safety standards.

Center-Right View: Enforcement With Accountability

For many center-right observers, the dispute underscores two principles that must coexist: firm enforcement of the law and competent government administration.

On one hand, commercial driving involves heavy vehicles, interstate commerce, and public safety. Federal requirements tying CDLs to lawful presence and English proficiency exist for a reason, and states should not circumvent them—intentionally or otherwise. The Trump administration’s push to standardize enforcement reflects a legitimate concern that uneven rules undermine safety and fairness.

On the other hand, when government agencies make clerical errors, the burden should not fall entirely on workers who complied in good faith. Mass revocations without individualized review raise serious due process questions and risk damaging supply chains already under strain.

A center-right solution would reject both extremes: neither ignoring federal law nor punishing workers for state mistakes. Streamlined corrections, lawful reissuance, and clearer coordination between state and federal agencies would protect public safety without unnecessary economic harm.

What Comes Next

As of December 25, no court has yet ruled on the request for an emergency stay. If the cancellations proceed, thousands of drivers could be sidelined overnight, with broader impacts on California’s economy and food supply. If the plaintiffs prevail, the case could force reforms in how states administer non-domiciled CDLs nationwide.

At its core, the dispute reflects a larger challenge facing California and the nation: enforcing the rule of law competently, without sacrificing the stability of essential industries—or the trust of those who keep them running.