Justice Clarence Thomas on Monday accused the Supreme Court of shirking its constitutional duty by declining to hear Florida’s lawsuit challenging California and Washington over commercial driver’s licenses issued to undocumented immigrants, an interstate dispute Thomas said only the nation’s highest court could resolve.
Florida’s complaint alleged that the two states had undermined public safety by issuing commercial trucking licenses to individuals lacking legal immigration status and, in some cases, adequate English proficiency—despite federal standards that are meant to govern interstate transportation safety. The lawsuit gained prominence following a fatal 2025 collision on the Florida Turnpike involving an undocumented truck driver licensed in either California or Washington.
According to the legal filing, the driver in question executed an illegal U-turn and was unable to comprehend roadway signage, leading to a crash that resulted in three deaths.
What Happened
The Supreme Court’s majority rejected Florida’s petition without providing public explanation. Thomas, alongside Justice Samuel Alito, issued a dissent that focused on the structural framework of the nation’s highest court. “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 contended that Florida’s allegations raised genuine public safety concerns and deserved judicial consideration. He cited the fatal highway incident involving truck driver Harjinder Singh, arguing that Singh “could not read the road signs.” Thomas emphasized that federal law expressly prohibits states from issuing commercial driver’s licenses to applicants unless they pass a driving test, demonstrate sufficient English comprehension, and prove appropriate immigration status.
“An illegal alien who cannot read English road signs cannot drive an 80,000-pound tractor-trailer,” Thomas wrote in his dissent, underscoring his view that the Supreme Court bore responsibility for adjudicating conflicts between states.
The Reaction
Thomas distinguished between the court’s discretionary authority over standard appellate cases and its exclusive original jurisdiction over disputes between states. He argued that the Constitution grants the Supreme Court compulsory jurisdiction in such matters, which cannot be waived based on policy preferences. “We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given,” Thomas wrote, invoking constitutional principle.
He further criticized the majority’s approach as contradicting both constitutional text and statutory law. “This Court has adopted a discretionary approach to its exclusive original jurisdiction based on policy judgments that are in conflict with the policy choices that Congress made in the statutory text,” Thomas stated.
Thomas drew an international analogy to reinforce his point. If California, Washington, and Florida were independent nations rather than U.S. states, a dispute over one jurisdiction allowing unsafe drivers to operate vehicles within another would likely trigger diplomatic conflict or intervention by international courts and treaties. “By entering the Union, States agree to instead have such disputes resolved by this Court,” he wrote.
What This Means
The case reflects an ongoing national debate over immigration enforcement, state licensing authority, and whether states with more permissive immigration policies bear responsibility for consequences affecting other jurisdictions. The Department of Transportation heightened scrutiny of non-citizen commercial driver’s licenses last summer following multiple fatal crashes involving undocumented immigrant truck drivers.
In September, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy announced tighter federal requirements for non-citizens seeking commercial driving privileges, signaling the Trump administration’s emphasis on transportation and immigration enforcement. Duffy also cautioned that California faced potential federal funding reductions if the state permitted commercial licenses to remain valid for individuals deemed ineligible under the administration’s revised federal standards.
The disagreement between Thomas and the majority illuminates fundamental questions about federalism, judicial authority, and the role of states in establishing their own licensing standards—issues likely to generate continued legal and political attention as licensing policies and immigration enforcement remain contentious nationwide.
