The Supreme Court has rejected Florida’s attempt to sue California and Washington over commercial driver’s licenses issued to immigrant truck drivers, declining to take up a politically charged dispute that blended highway safety, immigration enforcement and state licensing authority.

The court’s order, issued Tuesday, denied Florida’s motion for leave to file a complaint against the two states. The justices did not issue a majority opinion explaining the denial. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented, with Thomas writing that the court should not refuse to hear lawsuits brought by one state against another under the court’s original jurisdiction.

Florida’s proposed lawsuit accused California and Washington of defying federal law by allowing certain noncitizens to obtain commercial driver’s licenses, or CDLs, and by allegedly failing to ensure that drivers could read and speak English well enough to operate commercial vehicles safely. The case was tied to an August 2025 crash on Florida’s Turnpike in St. Lucie County that killed three people.

The driver in that crash, Harjinder Singh, an Indian national, was accused of making an illegal U-turn that led to the collision. He has pleaded not guilty to criminal charges. Florida officials said Singh had a valid California commercial driver’s license and had previously received a commercial license from Washington. The case became a flashpoint in a broader national debate over non-domiciled CDLs, immigrant labor in trucking and federal oversight of state licensing systems.

Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier asked the Supreme Court to block California and Washington from issuing commercial driver’s licenses to people who are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents and who allegedly do not meet federal safety rules. Florida argued that because commercial trucks routinely cross state lines, the licensing decisions of one state can create risks in others.

California and Washington rejected Florida’s allegations. California officials told the court that the state verifies legal presence through the federal SAVE system and tests for English proficiency as required by law. In filings, California said Singh applied for a non-domiciled commercial license in July 2024, provided an employment authorization document and passed an English-language test before receiving the license.

Washington also disputed Florida’s account, arguing that its commercial licensing process requires applicants to pass written knowledge and skills tests meeting federal standards and to satisfy residency or federal qualification requirements. Washington officials said Singh did not hold a valid Washington commercial driver’s license at the time of the Florida crash. The state characterized Florida’s lawsuit as an effort to turn a policy dispute into an interstate case.

The Supreme Court’s denial does not resolve whether California or Washington’s programs comply with every federal licensing requirement. Instead, it means Florida may not proceed with its proposed state-versus-state lawsuit at the high court. Lawsuits between states fall within the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction, but the court has often treated such cases as exceptional and has declined to hear some disputes that it views as unsuitable for direct resolution by the justices.

Thomas, joined by Alito, objected to that approach. In dissent, Thomas reiterated his view that the Supreme Court lacks discretion to turn away a properly filed dispute between states. He wrote that Florida had alleged serious consequences from licensing practices in other states and should have been allowed to proceed at least to the next stage, where California and Washington could seek dismissal.

The order comes as federal and state officials continue to scrutinize commercial driver licensing for noncitizens. The Department of Transportation has taken steps to pressure states over licenses it says were improperly issued, including threats to withhold federal transportation funds. The Trump administration has also emphasized enforcement of English-proficiency requirements for commercial drivers, framing the issue as a public-safety priority.

At the same time, immigrant-rights advocates, trucking groups and some state officials have warned that overly broad restrictions could remove experienced drivers from the workforce and worsen strains in the freight sector. The trucking industry relies heavily on immigrant workers, and licensing rules for non-domiciled drivers have long involved a mix of federal standards and state administration.

The dispute also reflects a larger legal struggle over how far states can go in tying public-safety regulation to immigration status. Florida has pursued aggressive immigration-related policies in recent years, while California and Washington have defended broader access to state-administered systems for people with federal work authorization or other qualifying status. In this case, California and Washington argued that Florida’s accusations rested on assumptions about their licensing systems rather than evidence of systemic violations.

For Florida, the court’s decision is a setback in a case designed to push the licensing issue directly before the justices. For California and Washington, it preserves their immediate position and avoids a Supreme Court proceeding that could have invited a broader ruling on state authority over commercial licensing. For the federal government, the denial leaves enforcement mainly in the hands of transportation regulators and lower-court litigation rather than a sweeping interstate decree.

The practical effect is that Florida’s Supreme Court case ends before discovery, briefing on the merits or a trial-like process overseen by a special master. The policy fight, however, is unlikely to end. The fatal Florida crash remains part of the national debate over driver testing and enforcement, while states continue to face federal pressure over how they verify immigration status, legal presence and English proficiency for commercial drivers.

The court’s action also signals that at least two justices remain willing to revisit the court’s modern practice of declining some original-jurisdiction cases. Unless a majority agrees, however, state attempts to bring politically charged disputes directly to the Supreme Court will continue to face a steep threshold, especially when the justices view the matter as better suited to federal agencies, lower courts or ordinary political channels.