Ninth Circuit (Again) Upholds FMCSA Preemption of California Meal and Rest Break Laws

In People of the State of California ex rel. Xavier Becerra v. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, the Ninth Circuit once again upheld the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s (“FMCSA”) determination that federal law preempts California’s meal and rest break (“MRB”) requirements as applied to drivers of passenger carrying commercial motor vehicles.

The dispute arose because California law requires employers to provide fixed meal and rest breaks throughout the workday, while federal law, enacted under the Motor Carrier Safety Act (“MCSA”), regulates breaks through broader hours of service (“HOS”) rules that limit total driving and on‑duty time rather than mandating specific break intervals. Under those regulations, a passenger carrying commercial motor vehicle driver may not drive more than 10 consecutive hours or be on duty for more than 15 consecutive hours.

Applying the MCSA, the FMCSA determined that California’s MRB rules qualify as regulations “on commercial motor vehicle safety” and are “additional to or more stringent than” federal HOS regulations. Under the statute, such state laws may be preempted if the agency determines that they provide no additional safety benefit, are incompatible with federal regulations, or impose an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce. The FMCSA concluded that California’s MRB rules met these criteria and should therefore be preempted.

Petitioners challenged the FMCSA’s authority and decision, arguing that the FMCSA lacks statutory authority to preempt California’s MRB rules. Petitioners also argued that, to the extent the FMCSA had the authority to preempt California’s MRB rules, the FMCSA’s preemption decision was arbitrary and capricious. 

The Ninth Circuit rejected these arguments. Relying heavily on its earlier decision in International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. FMCSA (2021), the court held that MRB rules are within the FMCSA’s preemption authority because they directly affect driver safety by regulating work and rest periods. The court also applied the deferential “arbitrary and capricious” standard and found that the FMCSA reasonably supported its conclusions, including its finding that California’s rules impose a significant burden on interstate commerce.

What employers should know?

This decision reinforces federal uniformity in commercial motor vehicle safety regulation and limits the application of California wage‑and‑hour rules to drivers of property-carrying commercial motor vehicles who are subject to the FMCSA’s rest break regulations. Employers should continue to comply with federal HOS regulations, including limits on driving time.

Contact Payne & Fears LLP if you have questions about this ruling or its application to your workforce.