WASHINGTON — Justice Clarence Thomas sharply criticized the Supreme Court’s decision to reject Florida’s lawsuit challenging commercial driver’s license policies in California and Washington, arguing that the case deserved to be heard.
Thomas, joined by Justice Samuel Alito, said the dispute raised important constitutional questions because Florida had no lower-court option for resolving its claims against other states. Under the Constitution, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over disputes between states.
“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.
Florida argued that California and Washington had failed to properly enforce federal requirements governing commercial driver’s licenses, including rules involving English proficiency and immigration status. State officials contended that such policies could create serious public-safety risks on the nation’s highways.
The lawsuit also referenced a fatal Florida crash involving truck driver Harjinder Singh. Florida cited the incident while arguing that violations of federal licensing standards can have deadly consequences.
Thomas emphasized that federal law establishes requirements commercial drivers must satisfy before receiving licenses and argued that Florida should have been given an opportunity to present its claims before the Supreme Court.
The justice also challenged the court’s broader approach to interstate disputes, distinguishing them from ordinary cases in which justices have greater discretion over which appeals they review.
“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 Supreme Court’s decision does not resolve Florida’s underlying allegations against California or Washington. Instead, it leaves the dispute without the Supreme Court review Florida sought.
Thomas and Alito’s dissent highlights a fundamental disagreement over the court’s constitutional responsibilities and its authority to decline cases involving conflicts between states.
The dispute also underscores continuing tensions over immigration policy, commercial trucking regulations and federal standards governing who may operate large commercial vehicles on American highways.
