Justice Clarence Thomas issued a sharp dissent Monday after the Supreme Court refused to hear Florida’s lawsuit challenging California and Washington for issuing commercial truck licenses to undocumented immigrants, arguing the court had a constitutional duty to address disputes between states.
Florida contended that the two West Coast states were creating public safety hazards by granting commercial driving permits to individuals without legal immigration status or adequate English proficiency, despite federal standards governing interstate transportation safety. The case gained prominence following a 2025 fatal collision on the Florida Turnpike in which a truck driver licensed through one of the defendant states allegedly made an illegal maneuver and could not read roadway signs, killing three people.
In his dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Samuel Alito, Thomas argued the Supreme Court possessed exclusive jurisdiction over interstate disputes and therefore bore a constitutional obligation to hear Florida’s claims. “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. The court’s majority declined to review the case without issuing an explanation.
What Happened
Florida’s lawsuit targeted policies in California and Washington that allow undocumented immigrants to obtain commercial driver’s licenses. The state specifically challenged the case of truck driver Harjinder Singh, whom Thomas identified as unable to read English road signs, after Singh was licensed through one of the two states and subsequently involved in a deadly highway crash.
Federal law requires that applicants for commercial driver’s licenses demonstrate sufficient English proficiency, pass a driving examination, and establish appropriate immigration status. Thomas argued that California and Washington violated these federal standards by issuing licenses to individuals who did not meet those criteria.
Thomas emphasized the potential dangers of placing inexperienced drivers in control of large commercial vehicles. “An illegal alien who cannot read English road signs cannot drive an 80,000-pound tractor-trailer,” he wrote, framing the issue as a matter of public safety rather than immigration policy.
The Reaction
Thomas contended that the court’s refusal to hear the case violated the Constitution. He argued that while the Supreme Court exercises discretion in reviewing ordinary appeals, disputes between states occupy a unique category because the Constitution grants the court exclusive original jurisdiction in such matters. Thomas invoked a legal principle stating the court has no more right to decline exercising jurisdiction granted to it than to assume jurisdiction not granted.
The justice criticized the court’s approach as driven by policy judgments rather than constitutional obligations. “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 wrote.
Thomas drew a parallel to international relations, suggesting that if Florida, California, and Washington were sovereign nations, a dispute over one country allowing unsafe drivers to operate in another would likely trigger diplomatic tensions and potentially require resolution through international courts or direct government negotiations. “By entering the Union, States agree to instead have such disputes resolved by this Court,” he argued.
What This Means
The dispute reflects ongoing tension between states over immigration enforcement standards and licensing policies. The Department of Transportation intensified scrutiny of commercial driver’s licenses issued to non-citizens following several deadly crashes involving undocumented immigrant truck drivers. In September, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy announced stricter federal requirements for non-citizens seeking commercial licenses as part of a broader federal push on transportation and immigration enforcement.
Duffy also cautioned that California could face federal transportation funding reductions if the state did not bring its licensing practices into compliance with revised federal guidelines. The case underscores deepening national divisions over whether states with less restrictive immigration policies bear responsibility for consequences affecting other jurisdictions, particularly regarding public safety on interstate highways.
