No Wonder Thomas and Alito Dissented

State sovereignty is a sine qua non of our federalist system. So it’s hard to grasp the logic of the Supreme Court majority’s refusal to hear a case brought by Florida against California and Washington. The Sunshine State’s grievance, per Justice Clarence Thomas, is that the two West Coast states are “defying federal law by providing commercial driver’s licenses to illegal aliens who cannot read English.” The question appears ripe for high court review.Florida reckons that these lax licensing practices in Washington and California are causing “the disturbing phenomenon of illegal-alien truck drivers causing fatal accidents on the road,” Justice Thomas adds. Joined by Justice Samuel Alito, Justice Thomas dissented from the majority’s decision not to take the case. The two justices, who are among the high court’s most principled originalists, assert that “we cannot refuse to hear suits between States.”An obvious question. The dispute arose when a tractor-trailer driven by an illegal immigrant, Harjinder Singh, crashed into a minivan, killing three. Mr. Singh, who reportedly ignored a sign barring U-turns, faces charges of vehicular homicide in Florida. Police found that Mr. Singh “likely could not read the road signs,” Justice Thomas says, concluding: “An illegal alien who cannot read English road signs cannot drive an 80,000-pound tractor-trailer.”Under federal law and regulations, Justice Thomas adds, states are barred 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.” How, then, did Mr. Singh secure a license to drive a tractor-trailer? Justice Thomas points to a trend of “systemic non-compliance” with licensing “standards in several States, including California.”Florida, in its complaint to the high court, reckoned that “California’s and Washington’s open defiance of federal immigration laws is well-documented.” These states, Florida asserted, “routinely frustrate and hinder federal law enforcement from addressing the immigration crisis and the destruction that accompanies it.” This causes “mayhem in other States,” Florida said, “that choose to follow federal law” and enforce standards.Florida asked the high court to order Washington and California to tighten its policies on giving licenses to illegals. These states turn a blind eye to violations of federal law, Florida averred, because of their “sanctuary” policies that forbid “state agencies from inquiring into immigration status.” Nor is either state doing enough to ensure that licensed drivers are proficient in English, Florida claimed in its complaint to the Nine. Yet on Tuesday, Justice Thomas laments, the high court’s majority turned down, “without explanation,” Florida’s complaint. This raises the justice’s hackles because, as he puts it, the high court “has exclusive original jurisdiction over Florida’s suit because it involves one State suing other States.” This stems from Article III of the Constitution, which states that “in all cases” wherein “a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.”That means states can bring cases directly before the Supreme Court without preliminary litigation before lower courts. Under federal law, too, Justice Thomas writes, the Nine’s jurisdiction is “exclusive” in “all controversies between two or more States.” That means, he says, “that no other court can hear this case.” Making the Supreme Court the forum for the Union’s constituent lands reflects the Framers’ respect for the prerogatives of the sovereign states.“I doubt this Court has discretion to refuse to hear cases within its exclusive original jurisdiction,” Justice Thomas says. His view contrasts with the precedent articulated in 1983 by another long-serving justice, William Brennan. Writing for the majority, Brennan said the court has “substantial discretion to make case-by-case judgments as to the practical necessity of an original forum in this Court.” Florida’s grievance suggests the merit of the Nine taking this case.

No Wonder Thomas and Alito Dissented

More from the New York Sun

Iran’s Supreme Leader Taunts Trump’s Pitch for Widening the Abraham Accords, Chanting ‘Death to America and Israel’

CBS Backs Off Crackdown on Clips of Stephen Colbert’s ‘Only in Monroe’ Appearance

Mamdani Debuts Sweeping, Costly Housing Plan — and Experts Are Skeptical

In Surprise Rebuke of Trump, South Carolina Senators Reject Redistricting, Preserving State’s Lone Blue District

Harvard Names Wife of Times Columnist Kristof, Whom Israel Accused of ‘Blood Libel,’ To Lead Its Board

Rapper Drake, in New Album, Calls To ‘Free’ Sam Bankman-Fried, but the Crypto Mogul’s Lane to Liberty Looks Bleak

In Sharp Reversal, Canada Donut Icon Tim Hortons Will Hire Locals To Fill Youth Employment Hole

An Abstract Artist Delights At Painting Within Her Comfort Zone