Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Samuel Alito, criticized the Supreme Court’s decision to reject Florida’s lawsuit against Washington and California over commercial driver’s licensing practices.
The dispute centered on whether the high court had a constitutional obligation to hear the case. Thomas argued that the Supreme Court serves as the only judicial forum for lawsuits between states and therefore cannot decline jurisdiction in such matters.
The Constitutional Argument
Thomas wrote that the Court has “no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given.” He contended that disputes between states occupy different constitutional standing than ordinary appeals.
“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 in his dissent.
Florida’s Claims
Florida alleged that Washington and California violated federal commercial licensing laws by issuing licenses without proper English language proficiency verification and immigration status checks. The state pointed to a fatal highway crash involving a truck driver to support its claims about road safety risks.
Thomas noted that “Federal law and regulations prohibit States from providing commercial driver’s licenses to applicants unless they pass a driver’s test, sufficiently understand the English language, and show appropriate immigration status.”
The Rejection
The Supreme Court declined to take the case, leaving Florida without a remedy through the federal judiciary. A seven-justice majority determined the case fell outside the Court’s original jurisdiction.
