If you thought the battle over California’s meal and rest break rules for commercial drivers was settled back in 2021, you were…mostly right. On June 4, 2026, the Ninth Circuit put the finishing touches on the preemption puzzle in People of the State of California ex rel. Becerra v. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, No. 20-70706, denying California’s petition for review and confirming that the FMCSA’s preemption of the state’s meal and rest break (“MRB”) rules extends to drivers of passenger-carrying commercial motor vehicles — not just the property-hauling truckers covered by the earlier ruling.
A Quick Trip Down Memory Lane
You may be asking why this is important. To understand how we got here, we need to take a brief doctrinal road trip. Congress enacted the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 to promote safe operation of commercial vehicles and empowered the Secretary of Transportation to prescribe safety regulations and preempt conflicting state laws. For years, the FMCSA declined to preempt California’s MRB rules, reasoning in 2008 that they were laws of “general applicability” — not regulations “on commercial motor vehicle safety.”
Then, in 2018, the agency changed course and determined that California’s MRB rules were regulations on commercial motor vehicle safety, and preempted them for property-carrying commercial motor vehicle drivers. Three years later, the Ninth Circuit upheld that determination in International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 2785 v. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (“IBT”), applying the “Chevron deference” standard — a reference to Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., the now-defunct doctrine requiring courts to defer to reasonable agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes — to conclude the agency’s interpretation was permissible.
Just three years after IBT, in 2024 the Supreme Court famously overruled Chevron in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, holding that courts must exercise independent judgment on questions of statutory meaning rather than deferring to agency readings. So without Chevron, where did the administrative interpretation stand? As the Ninth Circuit confirmed, Chevron is not the only driving force.
What the Court Held
The 2026 opinion, authored by Judge Holly Thomas, is remarkably straightforward. The State raised three arguments, and the court dispatched each one with ease.
- First, California argued that its MRB rules were beyond the FMCSA’s preemption authority because they are laws of general applicability. But the court held this was precluded by IBT, which remains binding authority post-Loper Bright.
- Second, California contended that the FMCSA couldn’t preempt break rules for passenger-carrying drivers because the agency hadn’t promulgated its own mid-shift break requirement for those drivers. The court disagreed: the federal hours-of-service regulations still “dictate how long a driver may remain on duty before a mandatory off-duty period,” sharing the same fatigue-management purpose as California’s rules.
- Third, California challenged the FMCSA’s burden-on-commerce finding as arbitrary and capricious. The court found the record adequately supported the agency’s conclusion that MRB compliance imposed “significant operational burden[s]” and that the “patchwork of requirements” for state break rules across 20-plus states burdened interstate operators.
The Petition was denied. Full stop. But what about Chevron, the doctrinal scaffolding that supported IBT in 2021? The Ninth Circuit did not even cite to Chevron or Loper Bright. Instead, the court reviewed the FMCSA’s determination under the Administrative Procedure Act’s arbitrary-and-capricious standard, which is “highly deferential, presuming the agency action to be valid and affirming the agency action if a reasonable basis exists for its decision.” In other words, the Court did not need Chevron to drive the point home, which is the nail in the coffin for the Chevron deference.
What This Means for Employers
The practical upshot is clear: California’s MRB rules are preempted for drivers of passenger-carrying commercial motor vehicles subject to federal HOS regulations. Many bus companies, charter operators, and other passenger carriers operating in California may be able to rely on the federal framework without navigating California’s more stringent requirements. Before making any changes, of course, employers should consult with experienced counsel to ensure their practices are fully compliant.
Drive safely, everyone!
