Justice Clarence Thomas Criticizes Supreme Court’s Decision on State Dispute Over Trucking Licenses

Justice Clarence Thomas criticized California and Washington for undermining federal immigration and trucking safety standards after a deadly highway crash in Florida. He expressed disapproval of the Supreme Court on Tuesday for not hearing a case that Florida had no other venue to present.

Florida alleged that these states improperly issued commercial driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. This violated federal standards requiring English proficiency and lawful immigration status for commercial drivers. Florida argued that these policies posed a public safety risk on American roads.

Thomas, along with Justice Samuel Alito, stated that the Supreme Court had a constitutional duty to hear this case. Lawsuits between states can only be presented to 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.

Florida Attorney General announced a probe into sanctuary jurisdictions that issue trucking licenses to illegal immigrants. Thomas emphasized the seriousness of Florida’s allegations against Washington and California. Failing to follow federal commercial licensing laws could lead to dangerous road conditions and had contributed to deadly crashes.

Thomas highlighted the fatal Florida highway crash involving truck driver Harjinder Singh, who “could not read the road signs.” Singh received CDLs from both California and Washington, which Thomas argued warranted giving Florida an opportunity to pursue its claims.

“An illegal alien who cannot read English road signs cannot drive an 80,000-pound tractor-trailer,” Thomas wrote.

He pointed out that federal law prohibits states from issuing commercial driver’s licenses unless applicants pass a driver’s test, understand English sufficiently, and have appropriate immigration status.

Florida filed the lawsuit directly with the Supreme Court under its original jurisdiction, which grants the court sole authority to decide disputes between states. Thomas noted that while the court might exercise discretion in ordinary appeals, it should not do so in state disputes.

“We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given,” Thomas stated.

Thomas accused the Supreme Court of not adhering to the Constitution when it chooses not to hear disputes between states. He criticized the court’s discretionary approach to its original jurisdiction, which he said contradicts congressional policy choices.

He further argued that if Florida, California, and Washington were independent countries, a dispute about permitting dangerous drivers could create diplomatic tensions and would likely be resolved through international courts.

Elaine Mallon writes for Fox News Digital and Fox Business, covering national politics.