Written by Brian Koegle, Managing Partner
Operating a trucking/logistics company in California has always been a challenge, for even the most sophisticated of business owners. Between the regulatory burdens, risk mitigation of catastrophic accidents, difficulties finding and retaining good talent, balancing the “independence” of drivers and, of course, the wild world of California wage and hour compliance – it’s a wonder how these business owners sleep at night. One of the most confusing and sometimes conflicting areas of law for trucking and logistics companies revolves around the years-long fight over whether California’s meal and rest break rules apply to their drivers. On June 4, 2026, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals handed down another (but still rare) win for the trucking industry — and it’s worth understanding what it means.
The Case
In Becerra v. FMCSA, California’s Attorney General, Xavier Becerra, and the California state Labor Commissioner’s office asked the courts to strike down a federal determination that California’s meal and rest break rules are preempted by federal law – meaning that trucking companies would be required to comply with California’s oppressive meal and rest standards. This time, the case involved drivers of passenger-carrying vehicles (think buses and shuttles), not trucks. But the ruling matters to all carriers subject to the federal “hours of service” regulations, because the court’s reasoning builds directly on — and reinforces — the same 2021 decision that already protects property-carrying truck drivers: International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 2785 v. FMCSA.
What the Court Said
California argued that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) overstepped its authority in preempting California’s meal and rest break laws. The court disagreed on every point, holding that:
- The FMCSA has authority to preempt state break rules whenever those rules cover the same ground as federal hours-of-service regulations — even if the state rule wasn’t written specifically as a “safety” law.
- It doesn’t matter that federal regulations don’t include an identical rule (like a mandatory mid-shift break). As long as federal rules address the same subject — duty limits and off-duty periods — that’s enough for preemption to apply.
- California’s break rules impose a real, documented burden on interstate carriers: scheduling disruption, higher driver costs, and the headache of complying with a patchwork of different state rules. That burden alone was enough to justify preemption.
Why This Matters to Trucking Companies
This case didn’t involve the trucking industry directly — but it’s important to note because it shows the Ninth Circuit has no interest in walking back the preemption framework it set out in the Teamsters decision back in 2021, and it once again re-affirms the appellate court’s prior decision confirming that truckers are exempted – as long as they are subject to the HOS requirements under Department of Transportation regulations. For those who are unfamiliar with the 2021 Teamsters case: it confirmed that California’s meal and rest break rules don’t apply to drivers of property-carrying commercial motor vehicles who are subject to federal hours-of-service rules. This new decision reinforces that framework and shows the court is willing to extend the same logic to other driver categories, as well.
The Catch: Not Every Driver Is Covered
The key here is that preemption isn’t automatic. It applies only to drivers who are actually subject to the federal hours-of-service regulations — generally, drivers operating in interstate commerce under U.S. Department of Transportation authority. If your drivers operate purely on intrastate routes, or fall outside federal hours-of-service coverage for some other reason, California’s break rules may still apply to them.
Bottom Line
Before you assume California’s meal and rest break laws don’t apply to your fleet, take a step back and confirm:
- Are your drivers subject to the federal Motor Carrier Safety Act and hours-of-service regulations?
- Are they operating in interstate commerce, or purely intrastate?
- Does your vehicle classification (property-carrying) fit the Teamsters preemption holding?
Getting this analysis right matters — misclassifying your drivers’ coverage can expose you to significant wage-and-hour liability. If you’re not sure where your drivers fall, the attorneys at Koegle Law Group are happy to help you sort it out before it becomes a problem. Making an error in this determination can cost your company handsomely, and it only takes one mistake to expose your business to class action and or Private Attorneys’ General Act claims, which can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend.
The information contained herein may not reflect the most current legal developments and is not guaranteed to be correct, complete, or up to date. Nothing in this article should be construed as creating an attorney-client relationship. Employers should consult with qualified employment counsel regarding their specific circumstances before taking action based on any information contained in this article.
About Koegle Law Group, APC
Koegle Law Group, APC is a boutique employment law and business litigation firm representing employers and businesses in California and Texas. The firm advises clients on a wide range of employment matters including wage and hour compliance, PAGA defense, harassment and discrimination, leave management, and HR counseling. For a confidential consultation, contact Koegle Law Group at https://koeglelaw.com or (661) 512-6770.
👉 Contact Koegle Law Group to schedule a consultation and get clarity on how we can help guide your business the right way.
[Contact Us] | [Schedule a Strategy Call] | [Subscribe to Our Newsletter]
This communication may be considered advertising material under the rules of professional conduct governing lawyers in California.