New federal rule leaves thousands of work-authorized immigrants without commercial driver’s licenses
May 11, 2026
This is a subtitle for your new post
Various recent media outlets confirm that a new rule by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), under the U.S. Department of Transportation, prevents immigrants with work authorization—including asylum seekers, refugees, and DACA recipients—from obtaining or maintaining commercial driver’s licenses (CDLs), affecting hundreds of thousands of drivers. Reports from outlets such as The Washington Post, The Guardian, and CalMatters indicate that the measure is already causing the loss of licenses and jobs, as well as potential impacts on the supply chain. Meanwhile, labor and legal organizations have filed lawsuits, such as Rivera Lujan v. FMCSA, arguing that the rule is illegal, discriminatory, and severely harms the livelihoods of thousands of families.
The administration implemented a rule that prevents asylum seekers, refugees, and DACA recipients from obtaining or renewing CDLs.
Lawsuits say it will “destroy livelihoods”
A transportation-focused publication confirms the language used by plaintiffs:
Attorneys stated that the rule “threatens to destroy the livelihoods” of thousands of drivers. It explains that asylum seekers, refugees, and DACA recipients are excluded.
Real impact: loss of licenses and jobs
A recent CalMatters report shows that this is already happening:
- Thousands of immigrant truck drivers have already lost their licenses in California.
- Many have been left unemployed and in legal uncertainty.
- It is estimated that up to 61,000 could lose their licenses in that state alone.
Economic and industry effects
- Driving schools report a sharp decline in student enrollment due to the new rules.
- Companies and analysts warn that the measure reduces the workforce and may increase costs.
Implementation of the rule (key detail)
Legal and regulatory sources confirm:
The rule went into effect on March 16, 2026.
It only allows CDLs for certain visa types (H-2A, H-2B, E-2).
Other work-authorized statuses no longer qualify.
Recently, The Guardian published an article analyzing the impact of this measure on driving schools.
Start CDL, a driving school founded by immigrants Asyl Kushnir and Gene Moik, is facing possible closure due to a sharp decline in student enrollment following new restrictions implemented during the administration of Donald Trump. Enrollment dropped from nearly 100 students per month to just 25–30, seriously affecting revenue despite high demand for drivers. According to its owners, the changes have created confusion and reduced access for immigrants with work permits—such as asylum seekers, refugees, and DACA recipients—who previously saw trucking as a stable job opportunity.
This serves as a small example of the different angles from which this new policy must be analyzed.
In summary
✔️ The rule exists and is already in effect
✔️ It directly affects immigrants with work authorization
✔️ There are active lawsuits (such as the one you mentioned)
✔️ Media reports confirm real losses of jobs and licenses
According to an article published by The Wall Street Journal, a Colombian journalist was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents under what appear to be several irregular circumstances. Colombian journalist Estefany Rodriguez Florez, 35, was detained by agents from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in Nashville, Tennessee. Rodriguez works for the Spanish-language digital news outlet Nashville Noticias, which covers local news for the Hispanic community. According to court documents, Rodriguez was arrested while she was in a vehicle with her husband, a U.S. citizen. The vehicle displayed the logo of the news organization where she works. Following her arrest, her attorneys filed an emergency petition arguing that the detention was unlawful. They claim the arrest was retaliation for Rodriguez’s journalistic coverage critical of ICE operations and the immigration policies of the administration of Donald Trump. The case has now reached federal court, where U.S. District Judge Eli Richardson ordered the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to formally explain why the journalist was detained. The government must submit a written justification this week, and the judge may schedule a hearing to further examine the case. Meanwhile, Rodriguez has been transferred to a county jail in Alabama while her immigration proceedings continue. The Journalist’s Immigration Status Court filings indicate that: Rodriguez entered the United States on a tourist visa in March 2021. Before the visa expired, she applied for political asylum due to threats related to her journalistic work in Colombia. Her asylum application is still pending. She holds a valid work permit that expires in 2029. She recently married a U.S. citizen. She has also filed an application to adjust her status to lawful permanent resident, which remains pending. Generally, individuals with pending asylum applications are legally allowed to remain in the United States while their cases are being processed. Key Points of the Case 1. Allegations of retaliation against a journalist Rodriguez’s attorneys argue that the arrest occurred because she had been reporting on immigration enforcement operations and publishing stories critical of ICE activities in Tennessee. 2. Debate over the legality of the arrest The defense claims Rodriguez was detained without being presented with a valid administrative warrant at the time of her arrest, which could violate constitutional protections. 3. Possible constitutional violations Her lawyers argue that her Fourth Amendment rights may have been violated, as the amendment limits arrests without proper warrants or probable cause. 4. The government’s position DHS denies that Rodriguez was targeted because of her journalism and states that: She was present in the country without valid immigration status, Her arrest was part of a targeted immigration enforcement operation, She will receive due process in her immigration case. 5. Confusion regarding ICE appointments According to the defense, Rodriguez had been complying with ICE requirements and had scheduled check-in appointments. However, administrative confusion allegedly occurred after one appointment was canceled due to severe weather and later rescheduled. Important Legal Implications 1. Freedom of the press If a court determines that Rodriguez’s arrest was retaliation for her journalistic work, it could constitute a violation of the First Amendment, which protects freedom of speech and press. Such a ruling could make the case highly significant for press freedom organizations. 2. Limits on ICE enforcement authority The case could help clarify the extent to which ICE can arrest individuals with ongoing immigration cases, particularly when they: have a pending asylum application hold a valid work permit are married to U.S. citizens 3. Arrests based on administrative warrants In immigration enforcement, ICE commonly uses administrative warrants rather than judicial warrants. Courts sometimes examine whether these warrants meet constitutional standards, especially when arrests occur outside detention facilities. 4. Adjustment of status through marriage Rodriguez’s recent marriage to a U.S. citizen and her pending application for permanent residency could complicate her detention, since that process can allow individuals to regularize their immigration status if eligibility requirements are met. If you have an immigration case for which you need advice, please do not hesitate to contact us at 719-602-4477. (We speak English and Spanish.)
Until 2025, there was no mandatory annual fee in the United States to keep an asylum case open. Filing an asylum application with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) or before an immigration judge within the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) carried no cost for the applicant. This changed with the passage of the federal fiscal law known as H.R. 1, the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” which for the first time introduced two fees for asylum applicants: An initial filing fee of $100. An annual fee of $100 for each year the case remains pending. How Does the Annual Fee Work? The so-called Annual Asylum Fee (AAF) requires every applicant with an open asylum case to pay $100 for each calendar year in which the application has not yet been decided. This charge applies regardless of the outcome of the case and cannot be waived or reduced. According to organizations closely monitoring the issue, the fee is assessed in two main contexts: Before USCIS: If the application has been pending for at least one year, USCIS must send a formal notice to the applicant with payment instructions. Within the immigration court system (EOIR): Cases that have been pending for more than one year also trigger the obligation to pay $100 per year, although for some time there was no clear mechanism to make this payment through EOIR’s platform. USCIS Enables Online Payment Amid Ongoing Confusion Beginning in October 2025, USCIS enabled an official online payment portal allowing asylum applicants to pay both the initial filing fee and the annual fee. This step was part of the broader implementation of the new fees established under H.R. 1. However, not all applicants have received clear notifications. According to reports, many asylum seekers are still waiting for information about when and how to pay the AAF, while some immigration judges have already begun requesting payment even when payment mechanisms were not yet available to everyone. Risks for Applicants Due to Lack of Clarity The rollout of the annual fee has been so confusing that at least one documented case shows an applicant being ordered deported for failing to pay the annual fee before any established method for payment existed. This situation was reported in a lawsuit filed by the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project (ASAP). As a result, panic has spread among asylum seekers, along with a surge of phone calls and emails overwhelming immigration law firms and USCIS itself. To date, however, significant misinformation still persists. Temporary Suspension by Court Order Due to the lack of clear mechanisms and the contradictory guidance issued by federal agencies, a federal court in Maryland issued an order temporarily pausing the enforcement of the annual fee. This decision stems from the lawsuit ASAP v. USCIS, which argues that: The annual fee was applied retroactively without clear prior notice. There was no effective method to pay the fee before it was required. The agencies acted arbitrarily and inconsistently with one another. The ruling granted a temporary stay that prevents USCIS and EOIR from requiring payment while the legal dispute continues and prohibits penalizing cases for nonpayment during that period. Fee Adjustments for 2026 In addition to the ongoing litigation, USCIS announced that certain fees would be adjusted for inflation effective January 1, 2026. Under this adjustment, the annual fee for asylum applications would increase from $100 to $102, although collection of this fee remains suspended by court order. What Does All This Mean for Applicants? In summary: As of 2025, there is a $100 annual fee to keep an asylum case open, in addition to the initial filing fee. USCIS has enabled online payments and has been sending notices to affected applicants. There is widespread confusion and lack of clarity about how and when to pay, especially for cases in immigration court. A federal court has temporarily paused collection of the AAF while litigation is ongoing. Fees are set to be adjusted for inflation in 2026, although their enforcement depends on the outcome of the court case. The introduction of an annual fee for asylum applicants in the United States represents a profound shift in immigration policy, with potentially significant effects on those awaiting decisions in their cases. Although the fee exists in law and USCIS has begun implementing payment mechanisms, practical enforcement is currently on hold due to a court order intended to protect applicants from unfair consequences. The situation continues to evolve, and it is important to stay alert to new legal and administrative developments.
The frequent arrest of immigrants inside immigration courthouses has become the subject of a major investigation. What, until a few months ago, were simply routine hearings have now become a source of fear for thousands of immigrants who are required to appear before these courts. It is increasingly evident that immigrants enter asylum hearings, have their cases dismissed, and upon exiting the courtroom are met by ICE or federal agents waiting to arrest them and begin the deportation process. A current investigation conducted by the Associated Press, titled “Migrants thought they were in court for a routine hearing. Instead, it was a deportation trap,” reveals the extent of this troubling pattern. Josh Goodman, a member of the investigative team, spoke to PBS News and stated that they have closely documented these procedures. “Nationwide, it’s estimated that there have been more than 2,000 arrests carried out this way. Some courthouses were quite chaotic, arresting people in the hallways. People were trapped in elevators. Journalists were mistreated. There were scenes of parents being separated from their children, and women pleading with federal agents to let their husbands go.” Goodman added: “What we’ve seen now under the second Trump administration is that they are effectively exploiting those vulnerabilities, issuing new directives about what judges can and cannot decide. And they are drastically limiting the discretion these judges have to rule on cases.” In a report published by AP News, journalists Martha Bellisle, Claire Rush, and Kate Brumback collaborated to provide a rare and comprehensive account of the large-scale arrests taking place in immigration courts across the country. Bellisle, based in Seattle, and Brumback, in Atlanta, spent weeks attending immigration court hearings, looking for patterns and untold stories. What they discovered was alarming: immigrants were being arrested immediately after the government dismissed their deportation cases — in effect luring them into court only to detain them as they walked out. The journalists describe multiple cases involving immigrants from countries such as Mexico, Venezuela, and Haiti — individuals who said their lives would be in danger if they returned home — yet their cases were dismissed and they were arrested by federal agents right after leaving the courtroom. In Summary These investigations show that immigration courts, which operate under the authority of the federal government, may be functioning more like detention sites than impartial judicial venues. Thousands of people — including asylum seekers, migrant families, and individuals with minor offenses — may be being trapped by a system that, according to AP, uses the courts to facilitate deportations without fair process. The practice raises serious concerns about fundamental principles of the justice system: access to legal representation, genuine hearings, transparency, and human dignity. If you have a pending asylum hearing or need advice regarding any immigration matter, do not hesitate to contact us at 719-602-5577.
Share On: