State clash: Supreme Court blocks Florida lawsuit over immigrant truckers

The Supreme Court this week rejected a request filed by the state of Florida to sue California and Washington, in a case involving the issuance of commercial driver's licenses to immigrants who are in the country illegally and do not meet federal English language proficiency requirements.

The controversy arose after a fatal accident in August 2025 on a Florida state highway. The driver involved was Harjinder Singh, an Indian national who had entered the country from Mexico and who, according to state and federal investigations, had allegedly attempted to make an illegal U-turn. Authorities further concluded that Singh probably could not properly read traffic signs. He is currently facing criminal charges, although he has pleaded not guilty.

According to Department of Homeland Security and Florida state officials, Singh obtained commercial driver's licenses issued by California and Washington.

"Without proper training or the ability to read road signs"

Faced with this situation, Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier requested direct intervention by the Supreme Court, arguing that both states failed to comply with federal safety regulations and immigration laws by allowing people without legal immigration status to operate commercial vehicles "without proper training or the ability to read road signs."

Florida specifically asked the highest court to prohibit California and Washington from issuing commercial licenses to persons who are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents and who also fail to comply with federal safety standards.

In his filing with the court, Uthmeier argued that:

"California's and Washington's decision to endanger their own citizens is reprehensible. But commercial drivers routinely cross state lines, endangering citizens of other States."

The Republican official added that the policies adopted by both states create "mayhem" beyond their borders.

"Wrong" assumptions about state practices and legislation

However, both California and Washington strongly rejected the allegations made by Florida.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta explained before the Supreme Court that the state's Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) verifies the legal presence of applicants through the federal SAVE system and requires proof of English language proficiency, as required by state and federal law.

Regarding Singh's specific case, the Californian authorities pointed out that the driver obtained a non-resident commercial license only after complying with all the established requirements. As they detailed, Singh submitted an employment authorization document in July 2024, which was validated through federal databases.

Bonta further stated, "The allegations in the proposed complaint are notably lacking, as Florida admits that it does not even know how California's commercial driver's license program works."

The attorney general contended that Florida based its allegations on "wrong" assumptions about the state's practices and law.

A "political stunt" or real concern?

For their part, Washington state officials called the lawsuit a "political stunt" and noted that Uthmeier publicly announced the initiative during an interview on Fox News.

Washington also responded by accusing Florida of improperly issuing commercial licenses to "thousands" of drivers without adequately verifying English proficiency or residency requirements.

Washington officials defended that state law requires all commercial license applicants to pass theory and practical exams aligned with federal standards, in addition to meeting residency or legal authorization requirements.

In their arguments before the Supreme Court, state officials pointed out:

"his dispute is not about boundaries or water; it is about the wisdom of state policies."

Also, Washington asserted that Singh did not possess a valid business license issued by that state at the time of the Florida accident.

Although the Supreme Court rejected Florida's request, two justices, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, publicly stated that they would have allowed the lawsuit to move forward. Both reiterated their position that the court should not refuse to hear litigation between states.