Justice Clarence Thomas criticized the Supreme Court on Tuesday for refusing to hear a case in which Florida sued California and Washington over commercial driver’s licenses issued to undocumented immigrants, arguing the high court has a constitutional obligation to settle disputes between states.
Thomas, joined by Justice Samuel Alito, said Florida had “nowhere else to bring” the lawsuit after the court’s majority declined to hear it. The case centered on allegations that the two blue states improperly issued commercial driver’s licenses to undocumented immigrants in violation of federal standards requiring English proficiency and lawful immigration status for certain commercial drivers.
Florida alleged that California and Washington’s policies created a public safety threat on American roads by undermining federal immigration and trucking safety standards. Thomas pointed to a fatal Florida highway crash involving truck driver Harjinder Singh, who he said “could not read the road signs,” and argued the case warranted Supreme Court review. “If this Court does not exercise jurisdiction over a controversy between two States, then the complaining State has no judicial forum in which to seek relief,” Thomas wrote.
Thomas noted that federal law prohibits states from providing commercial driver’s licenses to applicants unless they pass a driver’s test, sufficiently understand English, and demonstrate appropriate immigration status. He emphasized that people in the country illegally who cannot read road signs in English should not be allowed to drive commercial vehicles weighing 80,000 pounds on American highways.
The justice argued that Florida’s allegations were serious because failing to follow federal commercial licensing laws can create dangerous road conditions and has contributed to deadly crashes. He stressed that only the Supreme Court can hear lawsuits between states, making it the sole judicial forum available to Florida to pursue relief.
Thomas emphasized that while the court may exercise discretion when deciding whether to hear ordinary appeals, disputes between states occupy different constitutional ground. “We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given,” he wrote in his dissent.
The refusal to hear the case meant Florida had exhausted its legal options to challenge the licensing practices, leaving the two states without judicial accountability for their actions in the matter.
The Supreme Court’s decision to decline the case leaves open questions about the appropriate venue for interstate disputes involving federal regulatory standards. Thomas and Alito contended the court’s majority disregarded a foundational responsibility of the judiciary in the constitutional framework governing relations between states. The outcome raised concerns among the dissenters about whether federal safety standards could be effectively challenged when states adopt policies that allegedly conflict with those requirements.
