- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
SCOTUS declined to hear Florida’s lawsuit accusing CA and WA of illegally issuing CDLs
Posted on 5/26/26 at 1:46 pm
Posted on 5/26/26 at 1:46 pm
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/162orig_8n6a.pdf quote:
George Mason???? ????
@GMGunstonHall
53m
Replying to @scotus_wire
FL should impose Tarriffs on CA trucks, drivers, and any goods originating in CA. If they are to be treated as if they were sovereign- a part of a "test" to hear a case in the first place and they don't get relief, then act as a sovereign would.
This post was edited on 5/26/26 at 1:48 pm
9
Posted on 5/26/26 at 1:53 pm to Ailsa
Thomas seems correct. Where else is Florida supposed to go to court?
Anyone know the other side's argument?
Anyone know the other side's argument?
Posted on 5/26/26 at 1:54 pm to JimEverett
quote:
Anyone know the other side's argument?
Probably “That’s racist!”
Posted on 5/26/26 at 2:06 pm to Ailsa
SFP!!!!!
Posted on 5/26/26 at 2:14 pm to Ailsa
Florida needs to refuse to honor any CDL's issued by CA and WA. Of course this would guarantee reciprocity from those two states, thus insuring that SCOTUS and FTC would have to step in.
This post was edited on 5/26/26 at 2:16 pm
Posted on 5/26/26 at 2:15 pm to Ailsa
quote:
FL should impose Tarriffs
Look at this retard
Posted on 5/26/26 at 2:17 pm to Ailsa
Stop them all at the weigh stations and send them back.
Posted on 5/26/26 at 2:20 pm to JimEverett
quote:
Thomas seems correct. Where else is Florida supposed to go to court?
Anyone know the other side's argument?
I'm going to guess here and say that the argument is that this is exclusively a federal claim as it involves a lawsuit over CA purportedly not following federal law. Only the US can bring that claim. In Louisiana we call that the right of action.
What was Florida praying for, exactly? Damages? Declaratory judgment? I don't know how they could enforce a judgment where the exclusive execution authority is the feds. Even if they won, what would they achieve other than virtue signalling?
Posted on 5/26/26 at 2:23 pm to Ailsa
So the same corrupt bullshite from 2020 election lawsuits by Texas.
The Supreme Court is the ONLY place for states to go yet they get denied.
The Supreme Court is the ONLY place for states to go yet they get denied.
Posted on 5/26/26 at 2:25 pm to SlowFlowPro
LINK
The legal and political goals of the lawsuit included:Preempting State Sanctuary Laws: Florida asked the Supreme Court to declare that state laws preventing agencies from inquiring into immigration status are preempted by federal CDL regulations, which explicitly require lawful presence and the ability to read road signs.Preventing "Public Nuisance": The state argued that issuing heavy-truck licenses to individuals lacking legal status and English literacy posed an interstate threat, making California's and Washington's actions an actionable public nuisance.
The legal and political goals of the lawsuit included:Preempting State Sanctuary Laws: Florida asked the Supreme Court to declare that state laws preventing agencies from inquiring into immigration status are preempted by federal CDL regulations, which explicitly require lawful presence and the ability to read road signs.Preventing "Public Nuisance": The state argued that issuing heavy-truck licenses to individuals lacking legal status and English literacy posed an interstate threat, making California's and Washington's actions an actionable public nuisance.
Posted on 5/26/26 at 2:27 pm to Ailsa
Force those states companies who hire illegally licensed drivers to post a $5,000,000 bond fee to operate in Florida for each driver licensed by illegal means. If you put it on the companies they will fix it fast. If company X has 100 drivers who would go to Florida then thats $500m they have to post.
Florida has to do something extreme like that. That might then be challenged in lower court and make it to Supremes as a case they can accept.
Florida has to do something extreme like that. That might then be challenged in lower court and make it to Supremes as a case they can accept.
Posted on 5/26/26 at 2:28 pm to FATBOY TIGER
quote:
federal CDL regulations, which explicitly require lawful presence and the ability to read road signs.Preventing "Public Nuisance": The state argued that issuing heavy-truck licenses to individuals lacking legal status and English literacy posed an interstate threat, making California's and Washington's actions an actionable public nuisance.
Looks to me like plenty of valid reasons to refuse to honor CA and WA CDL license. Keep these drivers off Florida roads.
Posted on 5/26/26 at 2:30 pm to FATBOY TIGER
quote:Keep the trucks and contents. Seize them just like when they seize vehicles used in drug traffickingvabd sell them at auction.
Stop them all at the weigh stations and send them back.
Posted on 5/26/26 at 2:32 pm to OU Guy
quote:
Force those states companies who hire illegally licensed drivers to post a $5,000,000 bond fee to operate in Florida for each driver licensed by illegal means. If you put it on the companies they will fix it fast. If company X has 100 drivers who would go to Florida then thats $500m they have to post.
Florida has to do something extreme like that. That might then be challenged in lower court and make it to Supremes as a case they can accept.
Look up the Dormant Commerce Clause. Here is an AI summary via Gemini:
quote:
The Dormant Commerce Clause is a legal doctrine inferred from the U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause. While the Commerce Clause explicitly gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce, the doctrine implies that states cannot pass laws that unduly burden or discriminate against out-of-state economic interests, even if Congress hasn't passed conflicting legislation
Posted on 5/26/26 at 2:33 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Even if they won, what would they achieve other than virtue signalling?
More scrutiny on States' CDL practices? Virtue signaling in the case may actually be the point.
I don't know of course since I haven't been following it, but if State A has rigorous standards for truck drivers that they have to adhere to, and State B sends over truckers that wouldn't qualify in State A, it sounds like a public safety claim. That could be the purpose perhaps.
Posted on 5/26/26 at 2:37 pm to Ailsa
quote:
Justice Thomas argues that the Supreme Court cannot refuse to hear lawsuits between states because the Constitution gives the Court exclusive jurisdiction over those disputes.
If the Court turns states away, they have “no judicial forum” at all.
Oh well, just declare war. Just kidding.
Posted on 5/26/26 at 2:37 pm to Laugh More
quote:
More scrutiny on States' CDL practices?
Only the feds can do this. Even if they got this declaratory judgment, the feds still have to execute that judgment.
quote:
but if State A has rigorous standards for truck drivers that they have to adhere to, and State B sends over truckers that wouldn't qualify in State A, it sounds like a public safety claim. That could be the purpose perhaps.
I don't disagree. What I'm saying is that the AG/DOJ have the exclusive jurisdiction to act here
Posted on 5/26/26 at 2:40 pm to Ailsa
quote:Welcome to TX vs PA, and the Roberts' Court.
Justice Thomas argues that the Supreme Court cannot refuse to hear lawsuits between states because the Constitution gives the Court exclusive jurisdiction over those disputes. If the Court turns states away, they have “no judicial forum” at all.
Posted on 5/26/26 at 2:42 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Only the feds can do this. Even if they got this declaratory judgment, the feds still have to execute that judgment.
Is there a federal constitutional version of a writ of mandamus?
Florida should have sued the FTC (or whoever oversses the CDLs), it seems to me, over their (non)enforcement, instead of California.
Posted on 5/26/26 at 2:44 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Florida should have sued the FTC (or whoever oversses the CDLs), it seems to me, over their (non)enforcement, instead of California.
Something like this would have been more advisable.
The fact that it's nonenforcement makes it more difficult, though, b/c it's asking the feds to act. Preventing the feds from acting illegally is much easier (like TROs)
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News