Justice Clarence Thomas' latest dissent mocked and criticized by legal experts

The Supreme Court rejected Florida's attempt to sue California and Washington for issuing commercial truck driver's licenses to undocumented immigrants.

The lawsuit followed a fatal 2024 crash in Florida involving an undocumented immigrant.

While the majority declined to hear the case without comment, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissent joined by Justice Samuel Alito arguing the Court should have accepted it.

Thomas's argued Florida had grounds to declare war on California if they weren't part of the same country, which sparked widespread ridicule from legal experts.

"Thomas's premise here is flagrant nonsense; that California approving CDLs for people with temporary work authorization but not full legal status is the same as "sending dangerous people into another [state]," wrote Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council.

"'Mongolia declared war on Uganda today, after Uganda allowed non-citizens to obtain licenses to drive on Ugandan streets,' would be the equivalent, which of course makes no sense at all," argued law professor Joe Dunman of the University of Louisville, drawing a satirical comparison.

Georgetown professor Steve Vladeck noted the dissent may actually undermine arguments for mandatory Court review of state-versus-state disputes.

Legal scholars questioned the reasoning's logic and coherence.

Watch the video below.

Your browser does not support the video tag.