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. ”
Continue Reading »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.
There’s only one court in the country that can hear lawsuits between states, and that’s the Supreme Court
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
People in the country illegally who can’t read road signs in English can’t be allowed to drive 80,000-pound tractor-trailers on American highways, he said.
“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,” Thomas noted.
Thomas wrote that while the court may exercise discretion when deciding whether to hear ordinary appeals, disputes between states stand on different constitutional footing
“We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given,” Thomas wrote.
He’s right, of course. Florida now has no other recourse to pursue legal claims for the deaths of three of its residents. So not only were those deaths in vain, the two blue states who issued the Indian trucker a license get off scot-free.
It’s an outrageous development; Thomas and Alito are right to be upset about it
More than that, we have seven justices who think it’s okay to ignore a basic function of the high court: Settling disputes between states.
The disagreement is about whether the court should provide a forum for Florida’s claims. Thomas’s criticism centers on that jurisdictional question, making the refusal to hear the dispute a separate issue from how its underlying allegations would ultimately be decided.
