Truckers challenge California law that threatens their independent status

Independent truckers push back against California’s AB5 law, claiming it threatens their livelihoods. A federal appeals court heard arguments this week as the drivers’ association fights to preserve their right to operate as independent contractors amid conflicting state and federal regulations.

A group representing independent truck drivers is seeking to revive its legal battle against a California law that, they argue, effectively bans them from operating in the state.

Their attorney appeared before a Ninth Circuit panel, contending that the law severely restricts their ability to work.

The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA), which advocates for truckers who run their own businesses, says that Assembly Bill 5 (AB5) is deterring drivers—especially those from out of state—from taking jobs into California due to fears of legal repercussions.

"Truckers, especially those that are based outside of the state but drive into California for work, are avoiding taking their freight to California because they fear the long arm of the law’s enforcement of Assembly Bill 5."https://t.co/Ae7xO1YAL4
— Save Independent Work (@SaveIndWork) April 15, 2025

The AB5 dilemma

AB5, enacted in 2020, changes how workers are classified, requiring many independent contractors to be treated as employees. This shift provides workers with benefits like minimum wage, overtime pay, and other labor protections.

But OOIDA argues that AB5 forces its members to abandon the independent model that allows them to contract freely and run their businesses on their own terms.

Commerce Clause and the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act

Beyond the impact on business operations, the association also claims that AB5 conflicts with federal law, specifically the dormant Commerce Clause and the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994, which limits state interference in interstate commerce.

California does provide a business-to-business (B2B) exemption under AB5, but OOIDA maintains that most of its members can’t qualify. That’s because federal regulations, particularly the “Truth in Leasing” rules, require motor carriers to maintain exclusive control over vehicles used in interstate transport—something that contradicts AB5’s condition that contractors must work independently of the hiring company.

“The federal requirement for exclusive control cannot be reconciled with AB5’s mandate that a contractor be free from control. The two standards fundamentally clash.” Paul Cullen Jr., representing OOIDA

Tweet

Paul Cullen Jr., representing OOIDA, told the court: “The federal requirement for exclusive control cannot be reconciled with AB5’s mandate that a contractor be free from control. The two standards fundamentally clash.”

State lawyers pushed back, suggesting that truckers are opposing the law not because it blocks them from working, but because they don’t want to face the additional responsibilities that come with classifying drivers as employees.

California’s Department of Justice

Samuel Harbourt, representing California’s Department of Justice, argued that increased business costs do not amount to a legal burden that justifies overturning the law. Even if owner-operators choose to exit the California market, that doesn’t necessarily prove the law is overly burdensome, he said.

When questioned by Judge Consuelo Callahan about whether any truckers had successfully claimed the B2B exemption, Harbourt admitted he wasn’t certain but noted that the exemption is legally attainable—though designed to be rigorous.

OOIDA’s claim that AB5 bans independent truckers is inaccurate, Harbourt insisted. The law doesn’t prevent them from working—it just changes the terms under which they operate, requiring employee classification instead of independent contracts.

The International Brotherhood of Teamsters supported the state’s position, arguing that owner-operators still have options.

They can either become employees, which includes compensation for both labor and truck maintenance, or they can obtain their own operating authority from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and qualify under the B2B exemption—effectively becoming fully independent.

Judge Callahan remarked skeptically that while technically possible, it seems rare for anyone to meet the criteria. Robin Tholin, representing the Teamsters, responded that the exemption is not something drivers apply for—it simply applies if their circumstances meet the law’s requirements.

“Yes, it’s narrow,” Tholin admitted, “but it doesn’t eliminate the whole industry.”

She further explained that the OOIDA’s definition of independent contractors is not what determines legality; it’s up to the state to define labor classifications. Drivers can still own and operate their own trucks, she emphasized—they just might need to do so as employees.

The hearing was overseen by a three-judge panel that included U.S. Circuit Judges Roopali Desai and Ana de Alba, both appointed by President Joe Biden, and Judge Consuelo Callahan, a George W. Bush appointee.