MS NOW⁠95%

Thomas and Alito dissent from refusal to let Florida sue California over driver’s licenses ⁠42%

By Jordan Rubin⁠0%

5/26/2026, 8:28:21 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 12 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Framing Effect, and Loss Aversion, with Quote-first Misdirection as the most egregious example at 19.4% saturation with 86 hits. Analysis detected 478 faulty-reasoning hits from 444 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 46.2% and a BS Rank of ⁠42% (12,701 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 58.00% of the article peer group.

Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented Tuesday from their colleagues’ refusal to let Florida mount a lawsuit that one of its targets described as a “political stunt” announced on Fox News. 
The Republican-led state sought to sue Washington state and California for allegedly “defying federal law by providing commercial driver’s licenses to illegal aliens who cannot read English,” as Thomas’ dissent for the duo put it. 
He recounted that Florida alleged the two Democratic-led states created conditions for “the disturbing phenomenon of illegal-alien truck drivers causing fatal accidents on the road.” 
Although Thomas and Alito arguably are two of the most right-wing justices, and their framing of the case sympathized with Florida’s stance, their objection was formally procedural rather than politically ideological. 
This case wasn’t a typical appeal that a losing party takes from a lower court loss but rather an attempt to invoke the court’s “original jurisdiction” to hear lawsuits between states initiated at the high court. 
“I respectfully dissent from the Court’s denial of Florida’s motion because we cannot refuse to hear suits between States,” Thomas wrote Tuesday, lamenting that the majority “declines to even hear Florida’s claims, even though it has nowhere else to bring them.” 
He and Alito have made similar objections before, such as when the high court rejected Missouri’s bid to intervene in Donald Trump’s hush money prosecution in 2024. 
Successfully opposing Florida’s suit, California and Washington called it both procedurally and substantively lacking. 
In its opposition brief, California officials said that the red state had failed “to satisfy the basic prerequisites” for its complaint and that its underlying claims “are also patently meritless.” 
The West Coast state said Florida’s claims “turn on its unfounded assumption” that California’s motor vehicle agency doesn’t verify applicants’ legal presence in the U.S. or test for English-language proficiency before issuing commercial driver’s licenses. 
“But that is incorrect,” California officials said, maintaining that their state law requires verifying legal presence and English proficiency and that the state “in fact does so.” 
Washington officials called the failed filing “a political stunt, not a real claim.” 
Its opposition brief said Florida’s attorney general announced the lawsuit on Sean Hannity’s Fox News show, “issuing a press release modeled on a boxing fight card proclaiming: ‘Attorney General James Uthmeier is taking California Governor Gavin Newsom to the U.S. 
Supreme Court,’ and ‘Florida Leads With Support for the Trump Administration.’” 
Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration’s legal cases. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 8.3%MS NOW: 7.5%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 2.5%MS NOW: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 6.1%Jordan Rubin: 2.8%MS NOW: 3.7%Availability Heuristic6.1%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.6%MS NOW: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.9%MS NOW: 1.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 2.0%MS NOW: 2.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 9.9%Jordan Rubin: 21.5%MS NOW: 15.4%Framing Effect9.9%This article: 9.2%Jordan Rubin: 2.0%MS NOW: 0.7%Loss Aversion9.2%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 2.2%MS NOW: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.8%MS NOW: 2.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 2.7%MS NOW: 3.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 15.3%Jordan Rubin: 14.8%MS NOW: 19.2%Negativity Bias15.3%This article: 6.1%Jordan Rubin: 0.7%MS NOW: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias6.1%This article: 7.0%Jordan Rubin: 1.4%MS NOW: 3.1%Fundamental Attribution Error7.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 2.7%MS NOW: 3.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 2.1%MS NOW: 2.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.7%MS NOW: 2.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.2%MS NOW: 1.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 1.7%MS NOW: 1.8%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.7%MS NOW: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 2.5%MS NOW: 4.7%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.5%MS NOW: 1.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 4.6%MS NOW: 5.4%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 8.1%Jordan Rubin: 2.2%MS NOW: 2.2%False Dilemma8.1%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 2.4%MS NOW: 2.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 3.4%MS NOW: 8.1%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.4%MS NOW: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 1.0%MS NOW: 0.9%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 7.4%MS NOW: 9.8%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 2.0%MS NOW: 2.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 1.1%MS NOW: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.6%MS NOW: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.7%MS NOW: 0.9%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 1.3%MS NOW: 2.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 1.9%MS NOW: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.3%MS NOW: 0.3%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 2.6%MS NOW: 1.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 5.6%Jordan Rubin: 2.0%MS NOW: 2.5%Unattributed Quote5.6%This article: 19.4%Jordan Rubin: 2.2%MS NOW: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection19.4%This article: 7.0%Jordan Rubin: 8.4%MS NOW: 14.2%Biased Writer Voice7.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.4%MS NOW: 2.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 7.0%Jordan Rubin: 5.5%MS NOW: 5.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias7.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.7%MS NOW: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 7.0%Jordan Rubin: 1.0%MS NOW: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…7.0%

444 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers39%attributed speech273writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 100.0% coverageClarence Thomas • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageClarence Thomas • 41 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageCalifornia officials • 30 words • 0.0% coverageCalifornia officials • 35 words • 0.0% coverageCalifornia officials • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWashington officials • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Washington officials

100%flagged-word coverage
13 attributed words7.6% of attributed speech77% writer coverage
0%17.5%35.0%Quote-first Misdirection-31.5 ptsWriter: 31.5%Washington officials: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-11.4 ptsWriter: 11.4%Washington officials: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-11.4 ptsWriter: 11.4%Washington officials: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -11.4 ptsWriter: 11.4%Washington officials: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.