Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
In August 2025, Harjinder Singh — an Indian national who had crossed the Mexican border illegally — was driving a tractor-trailer on the Florida Turnpike when he attempted an illegal U-turn. His trailer swung across both lanes, striking and killing all three passengers in a minivan. Post-crash testing revealed Singh could not read English and could identify only one of four highway signs. Despite this, he held commercial driver’s licenses (CDLs) from both Washington and California. Washington later admitted it had erroneously issued CDLs to Singh and 685 other noncitizens.
Florida filed an original jurisdiction action directly in the Supreme Court, suing California and Washington under two theories. First, Florida argued that state laws prohibiting licensing officials from asking CDL applicants about immigration status are preempted by federal law, which requires CDL holders to demonstrate sufficient English comprehension and proper immigration status. Second, Florida alleged both states’ systemic failure to enforce federal CDL standards constituted a public nuisance endangering Florida’s residents.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court denied Florida’s motion for leave to file its complaint, without explanation. The case never reached the merits.
Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Alito, dissented. Thomas argued on two levels. First, he contended the Court has no discretion to refuse original jurisdiction cases between states, citing Cohens v. Virginia (1821): “We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given.” He argued the Court’s modern discretionary approach conflicts with the statutory text of 28 U.S.C. § 1251(a), which makes original jurisdiction exclusive when two or more states are parties.
Second, Thomas argued that even under the Court’s discretionary standard from Mississippi v. Louisiana, Florida should have been heard. The dispute over dangerous drivers crossing state lines would amount to a “casus belli” between sovereign nations, and Florida has no alternative forum because exclusive original jurisdiction means no other court can hear a state-versus-state case.
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court declined to hear Florida’s challenge to California and Washington CDL licensing practices, leaving the interstate dispute unresolved.
- The Thomas-Alito dissent signals continued interest in revisiting whether the Court has discretion to decline original jurisdiction cases between states, or whether Article III mandates that such cases be heard.
- Federal law requires CDL applicants to demonstrate English proficiency and lawful immigration status, but enforcement responsibility currently rests with individual states.
- The underlying policy conflict — state laws restricting immigration inquiries during licensing versus federal CDL safety requirements — remains live and may resurface in other litigation.
Why It Matters
While the denial of leave to file is not a ruling on the merits, this case highlights a growing tension between state immigration-access laws and federal commercial safety standards. California’s laws limiting immigration inquiries during licensing exist to promote access to services regardless of immigration status, but federal CDL regulations impose English proficiency and immigration status requirements for commercial truck drivers.
For California practitioners, the case is a reminder that this conflict remains unresolved. The Thomas-Alito dissent — unusually detailed for a denial of leave — suggests the original jurisdiction question itself may return, and the underlying preemption issue could be raised in lower federal courts through different procedural vehicles. Commercial transportation companies operating in California should continue monitoring this area for future regulatory or judicial developments.