Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
How have federal policies or court rulings affected state driver's license laws for undocumented immigrants after 2020?
Executive Summary
Federal courts and agencies have produced a mix of rulings and rules since 2020 that both preserve state discretion and tighten federal controls in specific areas: the Supreme Court affirmed states' ability to prosecute certain identity-related offenses (Kansas v. Garcia), federal appeals courts upheld state "driver’s license for undocumented immigrants" laws against standing challenges, while recent 2025 federal rulemaking has narrowed eligibility for commercial driver’s licenses for non‑domiciled applicants. These outcomes create a legal landscape where state noncommercial ID policies largely persist, but federal oversight has increased for REAL ID compliance and commercial credentials [1] [2] [3].
1. What advocates claimed and what courts actually decided — State power survives criminal preemption tests
The Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Kansas v. Garcia confirmed that federal immigration statutes do not automatically preempt state prosecutions for identity fraud tied to employment verification, allowing states to enforce state-level criminal laws even where similar information appears on federal forms. That ruling did not directly address driver's licenses, but it signaled that federal immigration law does not wholly displace state regulation of identity‑related conduct; states retain authority to craft and enforce certain identity and fraud statutes [1] [4]. This creates room for states to maintain or expand programs that manage licensing and identity verification, while still operating within federal immigration constraints.
2. Courts rejected narrow challenges to state “Green Light” laws — Standing, not substance, was decisive
Federal appellate courts repeatedly threw out challenges to New York’s 2019 Green Light law on procedural grounds, finding plaintiffs lacked standing to assert federal preemption or prosecution fears. These dismissals preserved the law’s operation and enabled thousands of undocumented residents to obtain non‑REAL ID driver’s licenses without a Supreme Court clash over preemption [2]. The litigation outcome shows that judicial intervention has sometimes been blocked by technical thresholds, allowing state policies to remain in force while leaving broader constitutional and federal‑state tensions unresolved.
3. REAL ID and routine federal pressure — Blue-state policies face administrative friction
By 2025, federal enforcement of the REAL ID Act and associated deadlines pressured states to reconcile inclusive state licensing policies with federal identity standards used for air travel and other federal purposes. Some reporting and compilations indicate that about 19 states plus D.C. provided non‑citizen access to licenses, creating a mismatch between state practices for driving privileges and federal REAL ID eligibility [5] [6]. The federal requirement that REAL IDs be issued only to those with lawful presence forces states to operate dual systems (non‑REAL ID credentials versus REAL ID), producing administrative complexity and political conflict even where state laws remain intact.
4. A significant federal shift in 2025 targeted commercial driver credentials — Narrowing who can obtain CDLs
In late 2025 the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration issued an interim final rule narrowing eligibility for non‑domiciled commercial learner’s permits and commercial driver’s licenses (CDLs), requiring states to verify immigration status through SAVE and limiting eligibility to specific lawful nonimmigrant employment categories. This rule does not directly change noncommercial state driver’s license eligibility, but it dramatically affects undocumented and certain non‑domiciled workers seeking commercial credentials, forces states to update verification processes, and may interrupt CDL renewals until compliance is achieved [3] [7] [8].
5. Conflicting incentives — States promoting safety vs. federal security priorities
States that enacted licenses for undocumented residents contended those laws improve road safety and economic participation, while federal agencies pressed for uniform identity standards and carrier safety for commercial operations. The legal and regulatory record shows a split dynamic: courts and state legislatures have preserved access to noncommercial licenses in many jurisdictions, whereas federal administrative actions — particularly around REAL ID and CDLs — impose stricter verification, narrowing federal benefits tied to credential security [2] [5] [8]. The result is a bifurcated system: broad state discretion for driving privileges, coupled with increasing federal gatekeeping where federal interests (aviation security, interstate commerce, commercial motor safety) are implicated.
6. What’s still uncertain and what to watch next — Litigation, federal rulemaking, and implementation gaps
Key unknowns remain: further litigation could test the limits of Kansas v. Garcia’s reasoning when applied to licensing contexts; states may face administrative costs and delays implementing SAVE and REAL ID workarounds; and the 2025 FMCSA interim rule invites judicial and stakeholder challenges as states adapt. Policymakers and courts will decide whether federal efforts to secure commercial credentials and REAL ID compliance translate into broader limits on noncommercial licenses or simply maintain a two‑tiered credential landscape. Observers should monitor forthcoming court challenges, state rule‑making, and federal guidance documents that will determine how these competing federal and state objectives are reconciled in practice [4] [7] [6].