South Dakota Tightens CDL Requirements: English for Drivers and Stricter Non-Domiciled License Checks

On March 10, 2026, South Dakota Governor Larry Rhoden signed two laws directly impacting the commercial driver's license (CDL) market and hiring practices in trucking. These laws address English language requirements for CDL holders and the revision of issuance and control rules for non-domiciled CDL.

The signing was part of an initiative linked to the federal political agenda surrounding "Dalilah’s Law." The governor's office statement emphasized road safety and preventing situations where CDLs are obtained or used by individuals without legal status in the U.S., as well as enhancing cooperation with federal immigration authorities (South Dakota government announcement).

The first law signed — SB 164 — requires CDL holders in South Dakota to have English proficiency and establishes accountability for non-compliance. In the governor's communication, this is presented as a practical safety measure: drivers must be able to read road signs and interact within control procedures.

The bill passed the legislative process with notable but not unanimous support. In the South Dakota Senate, SB 164 was approved 29–5, and in the House of Representatives — 60–5; the House committee adopted the document after amendments unanimously 10–0. The final stage — reconciling the amended version with the Senate — passed 32–2. The text and progress of the document are published on the state legislature's website (SB 164).

For carriers and HR departments, the practical aspect here is the increased risk at the intersection of hiring and compliance. Previously, "English" in the U.S. often existed as a federal requirement within control and inspection procedures, but now the state establishes a separate norm and penalty structure on its side. This increases the likelihood that the issue of English proficiency will be raised more frequently not only at the level of roadside inspections and DOT checks but also in the employment sphere: interviews, driver assessments before deployment, and internal audits.

The second law — SB 180 — targets changes in requirements for non-domiciled CDL. Essentially, the state tightens the criteria/verification for issuing such licenses, raising the bar for confirming the right to obtain a CDL for those who are not state residents. In the governor's statement, this is linked to the goal of "ensuring that only U.S. citizens and legal immigrants" have access to CDLs issued in South Dakota, as well as reviewing issuance procedures within the Department of Public Safety (DPS) following an internal process review.

The SB 180 bill passed both chambers with virtually no resistance: 33–0 in the Senate and 66–0 in the House of Representatives. Committees also voted unanimously (6–0 in the Senate Transportation Committee and 10–0 in the House Transportation Committee after amendments). The chronology and materials are available in the bill's record (SB 180).

For the industry, this means that the "market" for non-domiciled CDL in South Dakota — at least at the state procedural level — is becoming more closed. Carriers who, for various reasons, attract drivers with non-domiciled CDL (or consider candidates who obtained CDL not at their actual place of residence) may face additional delays in document processing, stricter package checks, and an increased risk of denial.

The industry was particularly struck by the governor's statement that South Dakota participated in a "law enforcement operation" with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and DPS simultaneously reviewed non-domiciled CDL procedures to prevent the issuance/use of licenses by individuals illegally in the country (South Dakota government announcement).

Even without publishing detailed metrics on raids or the number of violations identified, the mere public mention of joint work with ICE is a signal to carriers: the state is ready to raise the immigration component in the context of driver's documents and not limit itself to "paper" requirements. For businesses, this usually translates into two consequences. The first is an increase in compliance burden: stricter documentation of the right to work and the "cleanliness" of the package during hiring is needed. The second is the risk of local shrinking of the driver pool for certain segments, especially if the company is accustomed to working with candidates who have a complex history of documents or CDL training/obtaining.