SCOTUS: Florida Can’t Sue Blue States Over Illegal Alien Drivers

The State of Florida just lost its attempt to hold California and Washington accountable for flooding the roads with deadly drivers. The United States Supreme Court refused to allow the Sunshine State to sue others of a bluer hue for issuing CDL’s (Commercial driver’s license) to illegals who cannot read or write English. Justice Clarence Thomas was joined by Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote in dissent and argued for a new precedent on how the Court decides whether to take cases it has original jurisdiction over.

California and Washington act in open defiance of federal immigration law, and that has now resulted in “mayhem” in other states. That’s Florida’s position, acting in the wake of illegal immigrant Harjinder Singh’s killing of three people on the Florida Turnpike in August. Singh was issued a CDL from both California and Washington states, and then he made an illegal U-turn across traffic and against signage. The court document explained:

“Singh inexplicably attempted a U-turn across the median anyway. Singh’s U-turn swung his trailer across both lanes of the highway, where it could not be avoided by a minivan traveling behind him. All three passengers in the minivan died.”

Mr. Singh was arrested and charged with vehicular homicide and is jailed without bond awaiting trial in Florida. Why did he do it – a terrorist plot? No, it looks like his English proficiency was so poor that he didn’t know what the sign said. As Justice Thomas wrote: “An illegal alien who cannot read English road signs cannot drive an 80,000-pound tractor-trailer. 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.”

Was Florida Inappropriately Silenced?

What to do if you’re a Florida official, and other states refuse to perform that protective function before issuing CDLs? Well, they decided to haul those states into Court. We’ve all seen a lawyer or litigant promise to appeal their case – all the way to the Supreme Court! That’s usually wishful thinking, however, as only a small percentage of cases are appealed at all, and a tiny fraction of those eventually see the Supreme Court. Some cases, however, are filed directly to the highest court. Called cases of original jurisdiction, these are explained in the Constitution. Article 3, Section 2 includes a grant of power over:

“[A]ll Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States …”

In addition to that grant of authority from the Constitution itself, federal law gives the US Supreme Court original and exclusive authority to adjudicate disputes between states. That grant of authority is an important distinction because, in addition to any powers the Constitution gives the Supreme Court to settle disagreements between states, our federal laws say that’s the only lawful forum for settling such disputes.

Florida’s suit against California and Washington was thrown out because not enough justices voted to accept it. Justice Thomas wrote in dissent, in significant part because he argues the institution should not pick and choose which cases it accepts when states sue one another. For cases where the Court has appellate jurisdiction – like most cases we hear about in the news – for the Court to take an appeal, four justices have to agree to add it to the docket. That is a self-imposed rule to make the best use of the Court’s resources. But that’s not required when states are suing other states, as the risk of these cases flooding the docket is low.

That’s not all. Justice Thomas went on to say that, had the states been independent nations, California and Washington would have engaged in a “casus belli,” or cause of war, against Florida. He said the case should have been heard even under the current standard of review, which he opposes. It addresses a serious claim, and there is no other forum for the state to address it. That, Thomas writes with Alito in agreement, means the Court should give Florida a hearing on the issue.

It would be atypical for a justice to write in defense of denying a case, and none did here. California’s reply brief focused on claims that the issue was not important enough to warrant the Court’s attention, but it was based on a falsehood that they don’t follow the law and that it was unnecessary due to recent changes in their procedures. The case can come back if new facts give it another chance at review or if these justices change court precedent and grant all hearings in cases between the states.