Justice Thomas Makes It Clear He’s Not Happy With Supremes Who Rejected Florida Lawsuit
Justice Clarence Thomas doesn’t say much during oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court. He’s also got a calm demeanor and a hearty laugh.
And he’s been one of the best additions to the court in its distinguished history. He knows the Constitution like the back of his hand. So when a decision is made that seems injurious to the nation’s founding document, he responds like a parent trying to protect a child.
Thomas took other justices to task on Tuesday after a majority of the court refused to hear a lawsuit brought by Florida against Washington and California:
Justice Clarence Thomas accused California and Washington of undermining federal immigration and trucking safety standards after a deadly Florida highway crash, blasting the Supreme Court on Tuesday for refusing to hear a case Florida had “nowhere else to bring.”
Florida alleged the two blue states improperly issued commercial driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants in violation of federal standards requiring English proficiency and lawful immigration status for certain commercial drivers, arguing the policies created a public safety threat on American roads.
Thomas, joined by Justice Samuel Alito, said the Supreme Court had a constitutional obligation to hear the dispute because lawsuits between states can only be brought before the high court.
“If this Court does not exercise jurisdiction over a controversy between two States, then the complaining State has no judicial forum in which to seek relief,” Thomas wrote.
There’s only one court in the country that can hear lawsuits between states, and that’s the Supreme Court.
More:
Thomas argued that Florida’s allegations against Washington and California were serious because failing to follow federal commercial licensing laws can create dangerous road conditions and, he said, has contributed to deadly crashes.
Thomas pointed to the fatal Florida highway crash involving truck driver Harjinder Singh, who he said “could not read the road signs,” and argued Florida deserved a chance to pursue its claims.
People in the country illegally who can’t read road signs in English can’t be allowed to drive 80,000-pound tractor-trailers on American highways, he said.
“Federal law and regulations prohibit States 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,” Thomas noted.
Thomas wrote that while the court may exercise discretion when deciding whether to hear ordinary appeals, disputes between states stand on different constitutional footing.
“We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given,” Thomas wrote.
He’s right, of course. Florida now has no other recourse to pursue legal claims for the deaths of three of its residents. So not only were those deaths in vain, the two blue states who issued the Indian trucker a license get off scot-free.
It’s an outrageous development; Thomas and Alito are right to be upset about it. More than that, we have seven justices who think it’s okay to ignore a basic function of the high court: Settling disputes between states.
Ilhan Omar Arrested - Refused to Leave and Fought Police
Minneapolis, Minnesota - June 16, 2026
Newly released police records show that Rep. Ilhan Omar was arrested for trespassing in 2013 after refusing multiple orders to leave a Minneapolis hotel lobby. According to the Hennepin County police report, Omar became argumentative with officers and physically resisted when police attempted to escort her from the premises.
The incident occurred on January 18, 2013, after an event at the Minneapolis Convention Center featuring former Somali President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud. Large crowds followed the presidential convoy to the Hotel Ivy, where the president was staying. Hotel staff requested police assistance to clear the lobby, stating that only guests with room keys were permitted to remain.
When an officer approached Omar and asked her to leave, she refused. The report states that Omar was “argumentative” and stood her ground.
“As she stood her ground and refused to leave, I took hold of her left elbow to escort her from the lobby. Omar then pulled away from me, stating, ‘Don’t put your hands on me!’” the officer wrote.
Ten minutes later, the same officer found Omar seated in another area of the lobby. After being informed she would be arrested for trespassing if she did not leave, Omar again refused to comply.
The officer attempted to handcuff her while she remained seated in a chair. Omar pulled away during the arrest. She was ultimately booked into Hennepin County Jail.
“Omar was booked at [Hennepin County Jail] as I felt it was likely that she would fail to respond to a citation, and she also demonstrated that she was going to continue her criminal behavior,” the officer wrote in the report.
The newly surfaced document adds to the long list of controversies surrounding the Minnesota congresswoman.
Hannah Dugan Sentenced to 10 Years: Ex-Judge Helped Undocumented Immigrant Flee ICE in Court
MILWAUKEE, Wis. — June 16, 2026
THE SENTENCING HEARING for former Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan has been postponed indefinitely as a federal court takes under advisement a high-stakes defense motion aimed at completely overturning her felony conviction.
U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman opted to halt the scheduled June 3, 2026 proceedings to consider extensive oral arguments regarding recent appellate case law and procedural standards that could render the baseline foundation of the government's case legally invalid.
Dugan, 67, faces a statutory maximum penalty of five years in federal prison following a split verdict delivered by a federal jury in December 2025. The panel found her guilty of one felony count of obstructing an official federal proceeding but acquitted her on a misdemeanor charge of concealing an individual from arrest.
The criminal charges stem from a highly controversial April 18, 2025 incident inside the Milwaukee County Courthouse involving U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents and an undocumented immigrant.
"The defense maintains that the administrative execution of a standard immigration warrant does not meet the strict statutory definitions of an official federal proceeding required under obstruction laws."
The structural trial evidence demonstrated that ICE agents arrived at the county courthouse to detain Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, a Mexican national who had re-entered the United States illegally and was appearing before Dugan on a state misdemeanor battery matter.
According to official court testimony, Dugan confronted the agents outside her courtroom door, informing them that their administrative paperwork did not authorize a summary arrest within her state court facility. She then directed the officers to the chief judge's office before utilizing a private jury exit corridor to escort Flores-Ruiz and his defense attorney safely out of the building.
Agents remaining in the immediate vicinity observed the departure and apprehended Flores-Ruiz outside the municipal facility following a short foot chase.
Dugan resigned from her judicial seat shortly after the split jury verdict was finalized. While many legal observers originally anticipated a multi-year prison sentence if the felony conviction stood, first-time nonviolent offenders can alternatively receive probation or non-custodial outcomes depending on judicial discretion.
"The prosecution continues to push back forcefully against the request for a new trial, maintaining that the jury’s original verdict rested on sufficient, verified evidence and correctly applied federal law."
The case has commanded national attention from legal scholars as an unprecedented early test of a state court judge facing criminal prosecution for actions intersecting with federal immigration enforcement. The ongoing dispute has exposed deep rifts over the absolute authority of state jurists, courthouse safe-haven policies, and the true legal boundaries of domestic judicial discretion.
Judge Adelman did not issue an immediate ruling from the bench following the conclusion of oral arguments, stating that a comprehensive written order will follow. Consequently, the former judge's sentencing remains on hold until the court determines whether the underlying felony conviction will stand or be permanently vacated.
