WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled unanimously on May 14, 2026, that freight brokers can be sued under state negligence law for negligently hiring unsafe motor carriers that later cause crashes. The decision in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC strips the trucking industry’s middlemen of a federal preemption defense that had previously shielded brokers from liability in several federal appeals courts.
The 9-0 decision, authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, holds that a claim that one company carelessly hired a carrier to transport goods falls within the safety exception to the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA). Justice Brett Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion joined by Justice Samuel Alito.
The Crash Behind the Case
The case arose from a 2017 highway collision in Illinois. Petitioner Shawn Montgomery sustained severe and permanent injuries, including the amputation of his leg. While his tractor-trailer was stopped on the side of the road, it was struck by a truck driven by Yosniel Varela-Mojena, who was hauling a load of plastic pots for Caribe Transport II, LLC, a motor carrier. The shipment had been coordinated by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., one of the nation’s largest freight brokers.
Montgomery sued the driver, the carrier, and C.H. Robinson, alleging (among other things) that the broker was liable because it negligently hired Varela-Mojena and Caribe Transport. The lawsuit alleged that Caribe Transport had a “conditional” safety rating from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration when C.H. Robinson hired it, and that the agency had found the carrier deficient with respect to driver qualifications, hours of service, inspection, repair and maintenance, and recordable crash rate, among other categories.
Initially, a federal district court in the Southern District of Illinois held that the FAAAA preempted the negligent-hiring claim and that it did not fall within the safety exception, applying Seventh Circuit precedent from Ye v. GlobalTranz Enterprises, Inc., 74 F.4th 453 (2023). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
The Preemption Question
The FAAAA preempts state laws “related to a price, route, or service” of motor carriers, brokers, and freight forwarders in connection with the transportation of property. But Section 14501(c)(2)(A) preserves the “safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles.” The question before the Court was whether negligent-hiring claims against brokers fall within that safety carve-out.
The Court held they do. “The preemption question thus boils down to whether negligent-hiring claims of the type Montgomery presses are claims ‘with respect to motor vehicles,'” Barrett wrote. “We conclude that they are.”
Requiring a broker to exercise ordinary care in selecting a carrier, the Court reasoned, “concerns” motor vehicles. Most obviously, the trucks that will transport the goods. Barrett’s opinion grounded the duty in long-established tort principles, citing the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 411, which imposes a duty of reasonable care in employing a contractor for work carrying a risk of physical harm.
The United States filed an amicus curiae brief in support of C.H. Robinson, arguing that the safety exception should be read to exclude broker hiring decisions — a position the Court rejected.
The Court rejected three counterarguments from C.H. Robinson: that Montgomery’s reading would swallow the preemption clause whole, that it would create statutory surplusage, and that it would generate an anomaly with subsection (b).
Barrett acknowledged the asymmetry but said the statutory text controlled:
“While it is not obvious why Congress included a safety exception in (c) but not in (b), it would be even odder to say that the alleged tort—the negligent hiring of an unsafe motor carrier whose truck caused injury—is not an exercise of ‘the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles’ under §14501(c)(2)(A). The text of subsection (c)(2)(A) controls.”
A Close Call, Kavanaugh Says
Kavanaugh, joined by Alito, said the case was “closer than the Court’s opinion perhaps might suggest,” but agreed that the broader structure of federal trucking law supported the result. He emphasized that Congress in the FAAAA sought economic deregulation, not safety deregulation, and that “the negligent-hiring tort against brokers, like the negligence tort against trucking companies, exists to keep unsafe trucks and unsafe drivers off America’s highways.”
Kavanaugh noted that about 5,000 people died in truck-related accidents in 2022, calling truck safety “a matter of life and death.” But he cautioned that the decision should not be read to expose brokers to automatic liability. Brokers that perform diligence and hire reputable carriers, he wrote, should still be able to defend themselves successfully in court.
Industry Reaction
The decision in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC was met with alarm from freight brokers and defense counsel. A transportation law firm noted that the ruling effectively reverses protections previously recognized by the Seventh and Eleventh Circuit Courts of Appeal, leaving brokers exposed to state-court jury trials nationwide.
C.H. Robinson expressed disappointment in the Court’s decision in a press release. “While we are disappointed in the Court’s decision, we will continue to operate responsibly, support stronger federal enforcement, and work constructively with regulators, carriers, and customers,” said Dorothy Capers, the company’s chief legal officer.
The Transportation Intermediaries Association (TIA) said it is working with its members to assess next steps to mitigate the consequences of the Supreme Court’s decision. TIA noted that plaintiffs in negligent-selection cases still must prove causation and that individual brokers failed to meet the applicable standard of care.
Industry analysts predicted significant operational consequences. Harish Abbott, chief executive of the brokerage technology firm Augment, said brokerage leaders are preparing for “state-by-state standards for ‘reasonable care,’ greater litigation risk for brokers — especially smaller shops — likely insurance pressure, and new urgency around documenting carrier selection processes.”
A Morgan Stanley research note by analyst Ravi Shanker described the ruling as potentially “transformative for the trucking industry over time,” and suggested it could prove to be a significant headwind even for the largest brokers — not merely the small ones for whom the exposure may be existential.
The International Brotherhood of Teamsters applauded the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC. Teamsters General President Sean M. O’Brien stated: “Until now, Amazon, FedEx, and other bad employers have been able to outsource their legal obligations to third parties because of a loophole in federal law.” He further praised the decision as one that “will force the largest logistics employers in the country to finally prioritize worker and motorist safety over profits.”
What Comes Next
The case has been remanded for further proceedings, where Montgomery will now be able to press his negligent-hiring claim against C.H. Robinson on the merits. More broadly, the decision is expected to reshape how the roughly 28,000 freight brokers operating in the United States — who arrange transportation for about a third of all freight — vet the carriers they select.
The practical message of the ruling is, as Trucksafe President Brandon Wiseman put it, “If a broker hires a carrier with obvious safety red flags, it will not get a free pass under FAAAA… their carrier selection practices are going to matter even more in litigation.”
For an industry whose preemption defense has been the first line of defense in negligent-selection cases for years, the Montgomery decision marks a significant shift in the litigation landscape — one in which broker carrier-selection records, FMCSA safety data, and documentation of due diligence are likely to become central battlegrounds in truck crash cases.
References
- Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, No. 24-1238, 608 U.S. ___ (2026).
- 49 U.S.C. § 14501, Federal authority over intrastate transportation.
