Florida v. California

1 Cite as: 608 U. S. ____ (2026)
T
HOMAS, J., dissenting
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FLORIDA v. CALIFORNIA AND WASHINGTON
ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A BILL OF COMPLAINT
No. 162, Orig. Decided May 26, 2026
The motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied.
J
USTICE THOMAS, with whom JUSTICE ALITO joins, dis-
senting from the denial of motion for leave to file complaint.
The State of Florida moved for leave to file a complaint
against Washington and California for defying federal law
by providing commercial driver’s licenses to illegal aliens
who cannot read English. The result of this practice, Flor-
ida alleges, is the disturbing phenomenon of illegal-alien
truck drivers causing fatal accidents on the road. I respect-
fully dissent from the Court’s denial of Florida’s motion be-
cause we cannot refuse to hear suits between States.
I
On August 12, 2025, Harjinder Singh crashed a tractor-
trailer into a minivan on the Florida Turnpike. While driv-
ing on the highway, Singh approached a sign clearly pro-
hibiting U-turns and marking the turnaround area for “of-
ficial use only.” 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. Singh was arrested for ve-
hicular homicide.
Law enforcement soon discovered that Singh, an Indian
who had crossed the Mexican border illegally, likely could
not read the road signs. After the crash, the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration tested Singh’s English profi-
ciency: It found that Singh could not correctly answer most

2 FLORIDA v. CALIFORNIA
T
HOMAS, J., dissenting
of its verbal questions and that he could identify only one
out of four highway signs.
An illegal alien who cannot read English road signs can-
not 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. See 49 U. S. C.
§§31308, 31311; 49 CFR §§383.71, 383.73, 383.111, 391.11
(2024); see also 90 Fed. Reg. 46523 (2025) (to be codified in
49 CFR §383.71); 91 Fed. Reg. 7102 (2026) (to be codified in
49 CFR §383.73). Although Singh failed his test at least ten
times in Washington and at least one time in California,
both Washington and California provided Singh with
CDLs.*
Crashes like Singh’s are disturbingly common. See Press
Release, Dept. of Transportation, Trump’s Transportation
Secretary Sean P. Duffy Puts Safety First, Finalizes Rule
To Stop Unqualified Foreign Drivers From Driving Big Rigs
on American Roadways (Feb. 11, 2026) (collecting exam-
ples). The Department of Transportation seems to partly
attribute this trend to “systemic non-compliance” with fed-
eral CDL standards in several States, including California.
Ibid.
——————
*Washington eventually admitted that it had erred when it licensed
Singh. See A. Lockie, Washington Admits Mistake in Issuing Harjinder
Singh and 685 Other Non-Citizens Full-Term CDLs, Overdrive, Oct. 1,
2025; Failed CDL Test 10 Times: New Details on Indian-Origin
Harjinder Singh Who Took Wrong U-Turn in Florida, Killed 3, The
Times of India, Oct. 25, 2025. California, for its part, issued Singh a
nondomiciled CDL, a short-term license for immigrants who lack lawful-
permanent-resident status. Under federal rules as they existed at the
time, Singh had to show a valid work authorization. See 49
CFR §383.71(a)(5), (b)(9), (f )(2)(i) (2024). California now explains that,
although Singh failed his initial driver’s test, it issued the nondomiciled
CDL only after he eventually passed.

3 Cite as: 608 U. S. ____ (2026)
T
HOMAS, J., dissenting
After Singh’s crash, Florida sought permission from this
Court to file a lawsuit against Washington and California
based on how those States provide CDLs to foreign drivers.
Florida claims that Washington and California laws are
preempted by federal law to the extent that they prohibit
licensing officials from asking applicants about immigra-
tion status. Florida also claims that both States’ disregard
of federal commercial licensing standards constituted an
actionable public nuisance. According to Florida, enforce-
ment data suggest that neither State is adequately check-
ing CDL holders for English proficiency.
Without explanation, the Court today denies Florida
leave to file its suit and proceed to the motion-to-dismiss
stage.
II
This Court has exclusive original jurisdiction over Flor-
ida’s suit because it involves one State suing other States.
Article III establishes that “[i]n all Cases . . . in which a
State shall be [a] Party, the supreme Court shall have orig-
inal Jurisdiction.” §2, cl. 2. Congress has made our original
jurisdiction “exclusive” in “all controversies between two or
more States,” meaning that no other court can hear this
case. 28 U. S. C. §1251(a).
I doubt this Court has discretion to refuse to hear cases
within its exclusive original jurisdiction. “We have no more
right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given,
than to usurp that which is not given.” Cohens v. Virginia,
6 Wheat. 264, 404 (1821) (Marshall, C. J., for the Court). “If
this Court does not exercise jurisdiction over a controversy
between two States, then the complaining State has no ju-
dicial forum in which to seek relief.” Nebraska v. Colorado,
577 U. S. 1211, 1212 (2016) (T
HOMAS, J., dissenting from
denial of motion for leave to file complaint). The only stat-
ute addressing this Court’s jurisdiction over these kinds of
cases nowhere contemplates a process of discretionary

4 FLORIDA v. CALIFORNIA
T
HOMAS, J., dissenting
review. See §1251(a). Nonetheless, this Court has adopted
a discretionary approach to its exclusive original jurisdic-
tion based on “policy judgments that are in conflict with the
policy choices that Congress made in the statutory text
specifying the Court’s original jurisdiction.” Id., at 1213.
Thus, both J
USTICE ALITO and I have repeatedly called for
revisiting the Court’s precedents in this area. See, e.g.,
Texas v. California, 593 U. S. ___ (2021) (A
LITO, J., dissent-
ing from denial of motion for leave to file complaint); Ala-
bama v. California, 604 U. S. ___ (2025) (T
HOMAS, J., dis-
senting from denial of motion for leave to file complaint).
Even under the Court’s discretionary approach, it likely
should have granted Florida leave to file its complaint. The
Court considers two factors: “the nature of the interest of
the complaining State, focusing on the seriousness and dig-
nity of the claim” and “the availability of an alternative fo-
rum in which the issue tendered can be resolved.” Missis-
sippi v. Louisiana, 506 U. S. 73, 77 (1992) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted). As to the first fac-
tor, this Court has described as a “model case” a dispute
that “would amount to casus belli if the States were fully
sovereign.” Ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted). In
other words, the Court asks whether the dispute would be
a matter of diplomatic concern in the international arena.
This case appears to meet that standard. A dispute over
one nation sending dangerous people into another “would
be the source of considerable international tension.” Texas,
593 U. S., at ___ (opinion of A
LITO, J.) (slip op., at 9). If
Florida were an independent nation, it “might resolve [this]
dispute by diplomacy, by submitting it to international ar-
bitration, or by self-help measures.” Ibid. By entering the
Union, States agree to instead have such disputes resolved
by this Court. As to the second factor, all appear to agree
that Florida cannot sue Washington and California in any
other forum. Even the Federal Government’s enforcement
authority over these matters contemplates judicial review

5 Cite as: 608 U. S. ____ (2026)
T
HOMAS, J., dissenting
only in limited circumstances, so it may not result in the
declaration of legal obligations that Florida seeks. See 49
CFR §§384.307(e), 384.405(g).
III
This Court declines to even hear Florida’s claims, even
though it has nowhere else to bring them. Because I would
allow Florida to file its complaint, I respectfully dissent.