CDL Records Subpoena: Judge Rules DHS Demand Improper

A federal judge has ruled that the Department of Homeland Security’s CDL records subpoena, an immigration enforcement demand for identifying data on every driver in the national commercial license database, was improper, The Washington Times reported Oct. 21. The decision, which the paper said came on Tuesday, stops DHS for now from using its immigration subpoena power to sweep the national commercial driver’s license database. It also touches a question well beyond trucking: how much personal data an immigration agency can demand about people it has no particular reason to suspect.

The ruling has so far been reported by The Washington Times alone. What DHS asked for, and why the states objected, comes from the states’ court filings.

What DHS demanded, and from whom

The subpoena did not go to the states. It went to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, the nonprofit that runs the Commercial Driver’s License Information System, or CDLIS, under contract with the Transportation Department. Titled “Immigration Enforcement Subpoena,” it sought the system’s master pointer records for every driver going back five years: name, date of birth, Social Security number, license number and state of record, about 17 million records in all, the states said. According to the states’ brief, DHS first issued it on July 28 under 8 U.S.C. 1225(d), withdrew it when the association agreed to give the same data to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, then served an identical subpoena on Aug. 11.

DHS’s cover letter, as quoted in that brief, said the data would be used for “investigating illegal practices in commercial driver’s license (CDL) schools, identifying and addressing criminal fraud regarding the issuance of CDLs to illegal aliens, and conducting civil immigration enforcement.” Twenty-one states, the District of Columbia and Pennsylvania’s governor moved on Aug. 13 in federal court in Alexandria, Va., to quash it.

Their central argument was about scope. Section 1225(d) lets immigration officers subpoena documents material to enforcing the immigration laws. The states argued that it does not authorize a demand aimed at no one in particular, calling the subpoena an “unconstrained ‘fishing expedition'” that would sweep in millions of U.S. citizens. They also argued it violated the federal Driver’s Privacy Protection Act.

The second front: the Transportation Department’s demand

The subpoena was one of two federal routes to the same records. In a companion lawsuit, Illinois v. U.S. Department of Transportation, the states challenged the safety agency’s June 25 demand for the data. U.S. District Judge Anthony J. Trenga issued a temporary restraining order on Aug. 20 barring the association from transferring the plaintiff states’ records to any federal agency, FreightWaves reported. The Transportation Department’s position, according to FreightWaves, is that the association runs the system for the federal government and must turn the records over, which the safety agency says it needs to verify licenses and carry out its safety duties.

That pairing is why Tuesday’s ruling matters even with the restraining order in place. A quashed subpoena closes the most direct immigration-enforcement path to the data. The open question is whether the safety agency’s route, if it survives, could deliver the same records to DHS later; the states’ complaint alleges the data is being sought at least in part for immigration enforcement.

The case fits a broader push to run state-held records through immigration checks, seen in the Justice Department’s suit over 20,000 California ballots and the noncitizen voting cases now under review. Subpoena fights cut both ways: earlier this month a Maryland judge held that a state could not subpoena ICE over its Baltimore holding rooms.

For drivers, nothing changes on the road, and federal officials can still look up individual records. The people with the most at stake are noncitizen drivers licensed on the basis of temporary status, and the carriers that employ them, because bulk access would let agencies match the whole pool against immigration records at once. DHS’s realistic options are an appeal or narrower subpoenas tied to specific drivers or schools under investigation, the kind of targeted demand the states argue Section 1225(d) was written for.

This article is for general information and is not legal advice.

Sources

Vasanth Vaidyanathan, Esq.

Administrator

Vasanth Vaidyanathan is an immigration attorney with over 20 years of experience focused exclusively on U.S. immigration and nationality law. He holds a LL.M. from California Western School of Law, San Deigo and advises individuals and businesses on employment and family-based immigration matters, including H-1B, PERM, EB categories, and adjustment of status. He has also been a featured speaker at immigration seminars across the U.S. To reach Vasanth visit: https://www.vnathan.com/

Author's website Author's posts