Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Samuel Alito, criticized the Supreme Court’s decision to reject Florida’s lawsuit challenging commercial driver’s licensing practices in Washington and California.
The dispute centered on whether the high court had a constitutional obligation to hear the case under its original jurisdiction powers. A seven-justice majority determined the lawsuit fell outside the Court’s authority to hear disputes between states directly.
Thomas’s Constitutional Argument
Thomas argued that the Supreme Court serves as the exclusive judicial forum for lawsuits between states and therefore cannot decline such jurisdiction. “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.
He contended that the Court has “no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given.” Thomas maintained that disputes between states occupy different constitutional standing than ordinary appeals.
Florida’s Allegations
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.
Federal law prohibits states from providing commercial driver’s licenses to applicants unless they pass a driver’s test, sufficiently understand English, and demonstrate appropriate immigration status, Thomas noted in his opinion.
The Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court’s rejection of the case leaves Florida without a federal judicial remedy regarding the licensing dispute. The majority’s determination means the lawsuit cannot proceed in the nation’s highest court.
