By Matthew McColgan, a Look at the United States Supreme Court’s Recent Unanimous Decision Impacting Freight Brokers Nationwide in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC

“BETTER TO LIVE WITH THE MYSTERY”

A WATERSHED MOMENT FOR BROKER LIABILITY: THE SUPREME COURT UNANIMOUSLY REVIVES NEGLIGENT HIRING CLAIMS AGAINST FREIGHT BROKERS IN MONTGOMERY V. CARIBE TRANSPORT II, LLC

 Matthew J. McColgan, Esquire

On May 14, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a unanimous and highly consequential decision in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, No. 24-1238, 2026 LX 272294 (May 14, 2026) holding that state law negligence claims against freight brokers are not preempted under the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (“FAAAA”). The Court’s opinion, authored by Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett, solidifies a deep circuit split and significantly reshapes the litigation landscape in trucking litigation.

Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC stems from a catastrophic trucking collision involving plaintiff Shawn Montgomery and a motor carrier hired by broker C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. Mr. Montgomery alleged that the broker negligently selected Caribe Transport despite alleged safety deficiencies reflected in federal safety ratings, including concerns involving driver qualification, hours-of-service compliance, maintenance practices, and crash history.

Brokers have long maintained that negligent hiring claims necessarily impacted brokerage “services” and therefore fell within the FAAAA’s expansive preemption clause. Prior to Montgomery, federal courts were sharply divided. Some jurisdictions, particularly within the Seventh Circuit, held that negligent selection claims against brokers were expressly preempted because they directly targeted a broker’s “services.”[1] Other courts, most notably the Ninth Circuit, concluded that such claims fell within the FAAAA’s safety exception. With the backdrop of this Circuit Court disharmony, the central issue before the Montgomery Court was whether claims alleging negligent hiring by a freight broker of a motor carrier to transport goods falls within the FAAAA’s safety exception.

Focusing on 49 U.S.C. §14501(c)(2)(A)’s monikered “safety exception”, which states that §14501(c)(1)’s preemption provision “shall not restrict the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles”, the Court found that the FAAAA does not “restrict the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles.”[2] Because such negligence claims arise from the selection of motor carriers operating trucks on public highways, the Court concluded that these claims directly concern motor vehicle safety. Importantly, state common law tort duties fall within the purview of a state’s “safety regulatory authority,” and therefore requiring brokers to exercise reasonable care in selecting carriers is fundamentally tied to roadway safety.

This Opinion specifically does not decide whether 49 U. S. C. §14501(c)(1) would preempt Mr. Montgomery’s negligent-hiring claim. Rather, its holding confines itself to ruling that the safety exception of the FAAAA applies, noting that it was “not obvious why Congress included a safety exception in (c) but not in (b).”[3] The Court resolves this discrepancy by explaining that “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.’ §14501(c)(2)(A). The text of subsection (c)(2)(A) controls.”[4]  Leaving it at: “Better to live with the mystery than to rewrite the statute.”[5]

A concurrence by Justice Kavanaugh, joined by Justice Alito, sheds light onto the Court’s approach, and discloses that the opinion was close. While the concurrence considers the resultant “mystery” between the Act’s disallowance of state tort suits against intrastate transportation and its allowance of the same against interstate transportation a “good point” argued by the brokers (“Why would Congress permit state tort suits against brokers for arranging interstate trips but preempt state tort suits against brokers for arranging intrastate trips? Plaintiff has no good answer to that question.”[6]), the concurrence points to a higher importance of the overall structure of safety regime, and characterizes the statutory and circuit dichotomy as the distinction between pursuing economic deregulation and preserving safety regulation.

Justices Kavanaugh and Alito acknowledge what the industry feared – increased insurance and litigation costs – noting that the Court’s decision “should not be read to mean that brokers will routinely be subject to state tort liability in the wake of truck accidents.”[7] However, the proximate cause requirement safeguard the Court references will likely be of little help to brokers obtaining favorable insurance premiums or avoiding being dragged into litigation.

This case drew extensive amicus participation from transportation industry organizations, defense groups, and policy advocates. Amici on behalf of freight brokers and industry stakeholders warned that permitting negligent hiring claims would expose brokers to inconsistent state tort standards, increase litigation costs, and disrupt the efficiency of interstate freight operations. Conversely, amici supporting the plaintiff emphasized that broker carrier-selection decisions have direct public safety consequences and argued that traditional state tort remedies serve as an essential accountability mechanism in the commercial transportation industry. The Court’s unanimous ruling ultimately signals that, at least in the context of public highway safety, traditional tort accountability remains fully compatible with the federal regulatory framework governing interstate transportation.

The broader transportation industry implications are substantial. By confirming that negligent hiring claims against freight brokers fall within the FAAAA’s safety exception to preemption, the Court has fundamentally altered litigation landscapes for injurious transportation cases nationwide. The ruling strengthens a plaintiff’s ability to pursue brokers directly, increases the importance of carrier selection processes, and seemingly reshapes how transportation safety procedures can become a central litigation issue. The decision may also accelerate a trend already emerging within the industry: the transition from purely transactional freight matching toward more comprehensive risk-management-based brokerage operations.

[1] Montgomery v. Caribe Transp. II LLC, No. 24-1238, 2026 U.S. LEXIS 2036, at *9 (May 14, 2026)(comparing Ye v. Global-Tranz Enterprises, Inc., 74 F. 4th 453, 456 (CA7 2023), and Aspen Am. Ins. Co. v. Landstar Ranger, 65 F. 4th 1261, 1264 (CA11 2023), with Cox v. Total Quality Logistics, Inc., 142 F. 4th 847, 853-858 (CA6 2025), and Miller v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., 976 F. 3d 1016, 1020 (CA9 2020).

[2] Montgomery, No. 24-1238, 2026 U.S. LEXIS, at *10 – 12.

[3] Montgomery v. Caribe Transp. II LLC, No. 24-1238, 2026 U.S. LEXIS 2036, at *12. (May 14, 2026).

[4] Id. at *13-14.

[5] Id. at *12-13.

[6] Id. at *16.

[7] Id. at *19.