Supreme Court Declines to Hear Florida’s Lawsuit Over Out-of-State Commercial Driver Licenses

On Tuesday the United States Supreme Court denied a petition for review of Florida’s lawsuit against California and Washington. Florida seeks to require the two states to limit commercial driver’s licenses (CDLs) to individuals who possess legal immigration status and English proficiency, arguing that out-of-state drivers lacking those qualifications have caused fatal crashes. The Court’s refusal leaves the dispute unresolved; Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito filed dissenting opinions asserting that the Court lacks discretion to reject original-jurisdiction cases between states.

The Hill

The Constitution grants the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over controversies between states, making it the exclusive forum for such disputes. Florida contended that California’s and Washington’s CDL practices are preempted by federal immigration and licensing law and constitute a public nuisance. The defendant states argued that the suit does not fit the Court’s traditional role, which historically addresses boundary or water conflicts rather than regulatory disagreements.

The Hill

• James Uthmeier, Florida Attorney General (Republican), lead plaintiff.

The Hill

• California and Washington state officials, who defended their CDL statutes.

The Hill

• Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito, members of the Court’s conservative bloc, who authored dissenting statements.

The Hill

• The remaining justices, who voted to deny review.

The Hill

Florida’s complaint references “several fatal crashes around the country” involving truck drivers who were in the United States illegally, highlighting a specific October crash in California that killed three people. No further quantitative details are provided.

The Hill

Florida argues that the states’ CDL policies violate federal standards, create a public nuisance, and endanger citizens beyond state borders. California responded that the claims are “patently meritless” and misinterpret state law. Washington warned that allowing nuisance claims over issues such as vaccination or firearm regulations would open the Court to a flood of interstate disputes, emphasizing that the present case does not resemble traditional boundary conflicts.

The Hill

Both defending states framed Florida’s suit as an overreach. California labeled the allegations as meritless, while Washington cautioned that the Court should not become a venue for “lax vaccination policies or firearm restrictions” disputes, suggesting that expanding jurisdiction would set an undesirable precedent.

The Hill

The complaint cites fatal crashes involving undocumented drivers but does not supply a comprehensive count of such incidents, nor does it quantify how many CDL holders lack legal status or English proficiency. This lack of detailed statistics hampers assessment of the alleged safety impact.

The Hill

• “California’s and Washington’s decision to endanger their own citizens is reprehensible,” — James Uthmeier, Florida Attorney General, lawsuit

The Hill

• “By entering the Union, States agree to instead have such disputes resolved by this Court,” — Justice Clarence Thomas, dissent

The Hill

• “Can States bring nuisance claims against each other in this Court alleging that lax vaccination policies or firearm restrictions in one state are causing harm in another? The Court should not open that door,” — Washington state counsel, filing

The Hill

• “patently meritless” — California state response

The Hill

With the Supreme Court’s denial, Florida’s suit remains pending in lower courts. The dissent signals that some justices view the Court’s original-jurisdiction docket as broader than traditionally applied, potentially influencing future interstate litigation strategies. The defending states are expected to continue defending their CDL standards in state courts.

The Hill