Justice Clarence Thomas accused California and Washington of undermining federal immigration and trucking safety standards after a deadly Florida highway crash, blasting the Supreme Court on Tuesday for refusing to hear a case Florida had “nowhere else to bring.”
Florida alleged the two blue states improperly issued commercial driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants in violation of federal standards requiring English proficiency and lawful immigration status for certain commercial drivers, arguing the policies created a public safety threat on American roads.
Thomas, joined by Justice Samuel Alito, said the Supreme Court had a constitutional obligation to hear the dispute because lawsuits between states can only be brought before the high court.
“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 argued that Florida’s allegations against Washington and California were serious because failing to follow federal commercial licensing laws can create dangerous road conditions and, he said, has contributed to deadly crashes.
Thomas pointed to the fatal Florida highway crash involving truck driver Harjinder Singh, who he said “could not read the road signs,” and argued Florida deserved a chance to pursue its claims.
Singh received CDLs from both California and Washington.
“An illegal alien who cannot read English road signs cannot drive an 80,000-pound tractor-trailer,” Thomas wrote. “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.”
Florida filed the lawsuit directly with the Supreme Court under the Court’s original jurisdiction, which gives the justices the sole authority to hear disputes between states.
Thomas said that while the court may be able to exercise discretion in ordinary appeals, lawsuits between states are different because the Constitution gives the Supreme Court exclusive jurisdiction over them.
FLORIDA AG ASKS SUPREME COURT TO ALLOW IT TO CONTINUE ENFORCING CONTROVERSIAL IMMIGRATION LAW
“We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given,” Thomas wrote.
Thomas accused the Supreme Court of failing to abide by the Constitution when it declines to hear disputes between states.
“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.
He argued that if Florida, California and Washington were separate countries instead of U.S. states, a dispute over one government allegedly allowing dangerous drivers into another’s territory could create serious diplomatic tension and would likely be handled through international courts or other government action.
“By entering the Union, States agree to instead have such disputes resolved by this Court.”
