Justice Clarence Thomas is furious with the Supreme Court’s latest move.
The Supreme Court denied Florida’s motion to file an original-jurisdiction lawsuit against California and Washington, and Thomas responded with a blistering dissent that accused the Court of abandoning its constitutional duty.
Justice Samuel Alito joined the dissent in full.
Florida’s complaint centered on a straightforward public safety argument: California and Washington are issuing commercial driver’s licenses to illegal aliens who allegedly cannot read or speak English well enough to operate a tractor-trailer safely on American highways.
Those drivers do not stay in California or Washington. They fan out across the country on interstate routes, and Florida argued that its residents are being killed and injured as a result.
The problem for Florida is that no other court can hear the case.
When one state sues another, the Constitution vests original jurisdiction exclusively in the Supreme Court.
Florida has no fallback forum.
Thomas made that point the centerpiece of his dissent.
That is not a minor procedural gripe. Thomas was telling the majority that it effectively slammed the courthouse door on a sovereign state with a legitimate constitutional grievance and zero alternatives.
As The Federalist reported, the case involves commercial driver’s licenses issued under state policies that allow illegal aliens to obtain CDLs without demonstrating English-language proficiency, a federal requirement for interstate trucking.
Florida contended that those policies violate federal law and create a direct, measurable danger to other states whose roads these drivers use.
The Court’s order denying Florida’s motion came without any published reasoning.
There was no majority opinion, no concurrence, and no explanation.
There was only a denial and a dissent.
Thomas and Alito were the only two justices willing to say out loud what the denial means: the Supreme Court is ducking a case it was specifically designed to hear.
The broader context makes the decision even harder to defend. Illegal immigration and its downstream consequences, from public safety to labor-market distortion, remain among the top concerns of American voters.
Florida has been one of the most aggressive states in pushing back against illegal immigration at every level.
This lawsuit was part of that effort, and the Court just told Florida to go home.
Thomas was right to object.
When the Constitution gives the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over disputes between states, that jurisdiction is not optional.
It exists precisely because states cannot haul each other into a lower federal court.
Refusing to hear the case does not make the underlying problem disappear. It just leaves Florida, and every other state whose highways are affected, without a legal remedy.
That is judicial avoidance.
Clarence Thomas was not about to let it pass without a fight.
The Federalist highlighted the dissent shortly after the order dropped:
Thomas, Alito Blast SCOTUS For Ducking Case On Illegal-Alien Truck Drivers ‘Causing Fatal Accidents’
https://thefederalist.com/2026/05/26/thomas-alito-blast-scotus-for-ducking-case-on-illegal-alien-truck-drivers-causing-fatal-accidents/— The Federalist (@FDRLST) May 26, 2026
CPAC’s news feed also pointed readers to Thomas’s no-other-forum warning:
READ NOW: Thomas, Alito Blast SCOTUS For Ducking Case On Illegal-Alien Truck Drivers ‘Causing Fatal Accidents’ — This Court declines to even hear Florida’s claims, even though it has nowhere else to bring them,’ Justice Thomas…https://thefederalist.com/2026/05/26/thomas-alito-blast-scotus-for-ducking-case-on-illegal-alien-truck-drivers-causing-fatal-accidents/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=thomas-alito-blast-scotus-for-ducking-case-on-illegal-alien-truck-drivers-causing-fatal-accidents
— Top News by CPAC (@TopNewsbyCPAC) May 26, 2026
The Gateway Pundit framed the fight this way:
Justice Clarence Thomas delivered a sharp dissent after the Supreme Court refused to let Florida sue California and Washington.
The dispute centers on commercial driver’s licenses issued to illegal aliens who allegedly cannot read English road signs.
The report tied the case to the August 12, 2025, crash on the Florida Turnpike involving Harjinder Singh.
Singh, an Indian national who entered through the southern border illegally, had obtained commercial licenses from California and Washington.
He allegedly failed English-proficiency testing multiple times.
ADVERTISEMENTAfter Singh attempted a U-turn across the highway, his tractor-trailer blocked both lanes and a minivan crashed into it.
All three passengers in the minivan died.
Federal testing after the crash reportedly found Singh could not correctly answer most verbal questions and could identify only one out of four highway signs.
Thomas said Florida had nowhere else to bring its claims if the Supreme Court refused to hear the interstate dispute.
Iowa and 16 other states backed Florida’s effort.
The official Supreme Court docket confirms the procedural move:
The case is Florida v. California and Washington, docket 22O162.
Florida filed its motion for leave to file a bill of complaint on October 7, 2025.
California and Washington filed opposition briefs on January 27, 2026.
Iowa and 16 other states filed an amicus brief supporting Florida on December 19, 2025.
The case was distributed for conference repeatedly from March through May 2026.
The docket shows conference distributions on March 20, March 27, April 2, April 17, April 24, May 1, May 14, and May 21.
On May 26, 2026, the Supreme Court denied Florida’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint.
The docket states that Justice Thomas dissented from the denial.
Justice Samuel Alito joined Thomas’s dissent.
The docket does not show a majority opinion explaining the denial.
That left Thomas’s dissent as the only written explanation from the justices addressing why the case should have been heard.
Justice Thomas wrote in dissent:
Thomas said Florida sought to sue Washington and California for defying federal law.
He described the underlying issue as states providing commercial driver’s licenses to illegal aliens who cannot read English.
Thomas said the alleged result was illegal-alien truck drivers causing fatal accidents on the road.
He cited the Florida Turnpike crash involving Harjinder Singh.
Thomas wrote that Singh had crossed the Mexican border illegally and likely could not read road signs.
He wrote that federal law and regulations prohibit states from issuing commercial licenses unless applicants pass a driver test, understand English, and show proper immigration status.
Thomas said Singh failed his test at least ten times in Washington and at least once in California.
Yet both states gave Singh commercial driver’s licenses.
Thomas argued the Court has exclusive original jurisdiction over lawsuits between states.
He said if the Court refuses jurisdiction in a controversy between states, the complaining state has no judicial forum for relief.
The Federalist added the conservative legal context:
Thomas and Alito blasted their colleagues for declining the interstate dispute.
The rejected case was Florida v. California and Washington.
Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier asked the high court in October 2025 to consider Florida’s complaint.
The complaint argued that Florida’s claims were serious, dignified, and rooted in the Constitution.
It also argued there was no alternative forum capable of providing relief.
Thomas cited Article III and Congress’s rule giving the Supreme Court exclusive original jurisdiction over controversies between two or more states.
The broader dispute concerns commercial drivers, illegal immigration, and highway safety.
The Federalist also pointed to Department of Transportation concerns about noncitizen commercial truck drivers and fatal crashes.
The story noted that Florida framed the licensing issue as a public-safety problem that crosses state lines.
It also emphasized Thomas’s view that the Supreme Court exists to resolve disputes that lower courts cannot hear.
The practical issue is national because commercial trucks do not stop at the border of the state that issued the license.
For Florida, the question is whether one state’s licensing choices can impose danger on another state’s roads without any courtroom review.
This is a Guest Post from our friends over at WLTReport. View the original article here.
