Justice Clarence Thomas issued a forceful dissent after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a lawsuit filed by Florida against California and Washington, arguing that the Constitution requires the Court to resolve legal disputes between states.
Florida claimed that California and Washington violated federal commercial driver’s license regulations by issuing licenses to certain applicants who allegedly failed to meet federal standards concerning English-language proficiency and immigration status. The state argued that those alleged failures contributed to a deadly highway crash and raised significant public safety concerns.
Because the Constitution grants the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over disputes between states, Florida brought its case directly before the justices. However, the Court declined to hear the lawsuit without offering a detailed explanation, which is common when it refuses a case.
In his dissent, joined by Justice Samuel Alito, Thomas argued that denying review effectively left Florida without any judicial forum to pursue its 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.
Thomas said the lawsuit raised important questions about federal commercial licensing standards and highway safety. He referenced a fatal Florida crash involving truck driver Harjinder Singh, arguing that the state should have been allowed to present evidence supporting its allegations that federal licensing requirements had not been properly enforced.
According to Thomas, federal law requires commercial driver’s license applicants to pass required examinations, demonstrate adequate English-language proficiency, and meet applicable legal eligibility standards before receiving a license. He warned that failing to enforce those requirements could create serious public safety risks.
Thomas also emphasized that while the Supreme Court has broad discretion in deciding whether to hear most appeals, interstate lawsuits are different because no other federal court has authority to resolve them.
“We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given,” Thomas wrote.
The Court’s decision leaves Florida without another judicial avenue to pursue its claims, according to the dissent. The majority did not explain its reasoning, consistent with its usual practice when declining to hear a case.
The dispute highlights ongoing questions about the scope of the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction, the enforcement of federal commercial driver’s license standards, and the Court’s constitutional responsibility in resolving conflicts between states. Thomas’s dissent reflects continuing debate among the justices over how that authority should be exercised.
