Montgomery v. Caribe Transport: The Supreme Court Case That Already Changed Broker Liability Before It Was Decided

On March 4, 2026, attorney Paul Clement stood before the Supreme Court and told the justices that 94% of registered motor carriers on American roads have never received a meaningful federal safety inspection. State tort law, he argued, is the only backstop. On the other side, Theodore Boutrous argued that freight brokers are middlemen "completely divorced" from direct motor vehicle operation and that holding them liable for carrier accidents would create a patchwork of state regulations that Congress specifically intended to prevent. Then the Solicitor General of the United States took the podium and sided with the broker.

Montgomery v. Caribe Transport is the most significant freight broker liability case in a generation. The question before the Court: does the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (FAAAA) preempt state common-law claims against freight brokers for negligent carrier selection? The answer will determine whether injured parties can sue brokers in state court when a broker's carrier causes an accident, or whether federal law shields brokers from those claims entirely.

But here's what most coverage of this case misses. Montgomery v. Caribe Transport has already changed the broker liability landscape, and the decision hasn't come down yet. Twenty-nine states plus the District of Columbia filed a brief telling the Court that brokers should be liable. Congress introduced the Patrick and Barbara Kowalski Freight Brokers Safety Act (H.R. 6884) to create federal penalties for brokers who hire carriers with DOT violations. Plaintiffs' attorneys across the country are building negligent selection case files right now on the assumption that preemption is going away. Whether the Court rules for Montgomery or for C.H. Robinson, the era where a broker could treat carrier vetting as optional because federal preemption would protect them is ending. The only question is how fast.

Montgomery v. Caribe Transport: What Each Outcome Means for Brokers

What Montgomery v. Caribe Transport Is Actually About

Montgomery v. Caribe Transport (No. 24-1238) is a negligent carrier selection case arising from a rear-end truck collision on an Illinois highway in December 2017. Shawn Montgomery, a truck driver, was stationary when a tractor-trailer driven by an employee of Caribe Transport II, LLC struck his vehicle. Montgomery suffered severe injuries. The load on the truck that hit him had been arranged by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., one of the largest freight brokers in the United States.

Negligent carrier selection is a state tort law theory where an injured party sues the broker, arguing the broker failed to exercise reasonable care in choosing the motor carrier. For a full breakdown of how negligent selection cases work, including the five data points plaintiffs' attorneys use and how to build a vetting process that functions as legal defense, see our broker liability guide.

Montgomery sued both the carrier and C.H. Robinson. The broker-carrier agreement designated Caribe Transport as an independent contractor responsible for equipment, personnel, and service performance. C.H. Robinson didn't own the truck, employ the driver, choose the route, or control how the load was hauled. Their role was matchmaking: connecting a shipper's freight with a carrier to haul it.

C.H. Robinson moved to dismiss, arguing that the FAAAA preempts Montgomery's negligent selection claim. The district court agreed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, relying on its 2023 decision in Ye v. GlobalTranz Enterprises, Inc., which held that state-law negligent hiring claims against freight brokers are preempted by federal law. Montgomery petitioned the Supreme Court, which granted certiorari on October 3, 2025. Oral arguments were heard on March 4, 2026. A decision is expected by the end of June 2026.

The FAAAA Preemption Question Explained

The central legal question is whether a 1994 federal law prevents injured people from suing freight brokers in state court for choosing bad carriers. The answer depends on how the Supreme Court interprets two clauses in the same statute.

The FAAAA's preemption clause (49 U.S.C. Section 14501(c)(1)) says that states may not enforce any law "related to a price, route, or service of any motor carrier... broker, or freight forwarder with respect to the transportation of property." This language is deliberately broad. It was designed to prevent states from re-regulating the trucking industry after federal deregulation in 1980.

The FAAAA's safety exception (49 U.S.C. Section 14501(c)(2)(A)) says the preemption clause "shall not restrict the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles."

The tension is straightforward. Carrier selection is arguably a broker's core "service," which would make negligent selection claims "related to" broker services and therefore preempted. But negligent selection claims are also about motor vehicle safety, because the entire theory hinges on whether the broker put an unsafe carrier on the road. The safety exception arguably preserves states' authority to hold brokers accountable for exactly that.

Every federal appeals court that addressed this question agreed that negligent selection claims fall within the FAAAA's broad preemptive scope. The split was over whether the safety exception saves those claims.

The Circuit Split That Forced the Supreme Court's Hand

Four federal appellate courts reached this question, and they split evenly. The disagreement meant that a broker's liability for the same accident could depend entirely on which state the crash occurred in.

Courts That Said Brokers Can Be Sued

Ninth Circuit: Miller v. C.H. Robinson (2020). Allen Miller suffered quadriplegia after colliding with a semi-tractor-trailer on Interstate 80 in Nevada. C.H. Robinson had brokered the load. The Ninth Circuit held that the safety exception preserves negligent selection claims against brokers because those claims substantively concern motor vehicle safety. The court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment for C.H. Robinson.

Sixth Circuit: Cox v. Total Quality Logistics (2025). A carrier brokered by Total Quality Logistics (TQL) was involved in a construction zone crash that killed Greta Cox. The Sixth Circuit held that negligent hiring claims against brokers fall within the safety exception because they "involve" motor vehicles and motor vehicle safety.

Courts That Said Brokers Are Protected

Seventh Circuit: Ye v. GlobalTranz (2023). A driver transporting goods brokered by GlobalTranz collided with a motorcycle, killing the rider. The Seventh Circuit held that negligent hiring claims against brokers are preempted and that the safety exception does not apply because brokers do not operate motor vehicles.

Eleventh Circuit: Aspen v. Landstar Ranger (2023). A broker mistakenly turned a shipment over to a thief posing as a carrier. The Eleventh Circuit held that claims challenging a broker's selection of a motor carrier are not "with respect to motor vehicles" and therefore the safety exception does not save them from preemption.

With two circuits on each side, the Supreme Court's intervention was inevitable.

What Happened at Oral Argument on March 4, 2026

Oral argument revealed a Court wrestling with where to draw the line between federal deregulation of broker services and state authority over roadway safety. Three parties argued: Montgomery's attorney (Paul Clement), C.H. Robinson's attorney (Theodore Boutrous of Gibson Dunn), and the U.S. Solicitor General's office (Assistant Sopan Joshi), which sided with the broker.

Montgomery's Strongest Arguments

Clement argued that Congress intended economic deregulation of trucking, not safety deregulation. State tort law has historically applied to both carriers and brokers. Preempting negligent selection claims would remove the only legal incentive for brokers to vet carriers carefully, since 94% of registered carriers have never received a meaningful federal safety audit. The federal system creates a framework for carrier licensing but does not monitor whether individual brokers select safe carriers for individual loads. That monitoring function belongs to state tort law.

C.H. Robinson's Strongest Arguments

Boutrous argued that carrier selection is the core of what brokers do, and any state law that imposes liability for how brokers perform their core function "relates to" broker services and is preempted. Brokers are middlemen. They don't own trucks, hire drivers, or control routes. The federal government licenses carriers, and brokers should be able to rely on that licensing as a baseline. Allowing 50 different state standards for broker liability would create exactly the regulatory fragmentation Congress sought to prevent.

The Government's Position

The Solicitor General supported C.H. Robinson. Joshi drew a textual distinction between the broad phrase "transportation of property" in the preemption clause and the narrower "motor vehicles" in the safety exception. His argument: the safety exception preserves state authority over motor vehicles specifically, not over every participant in the transportation chain. Brokers are not motor vehicles. The federal scheme treats carriers as the parties responsible for vehicle safety, not the middlemen who arrange loads.

Signals From the Bench

Justice Kavanaugh cited the Transportation Intermediaries Association (TIA) amicus brief, noting concerns that "whatever you do as a broker is never enough for the plaintiff's personal injury bar." He appeared skeptical of expanding broker liability. Justice Jackson pushed back, suggesting Congress preserved the pre-existing safety status quo and left states to decide liability allocation. Justice Sotomayor questioned why states cannot hold brokers accountable for "putting the driver in the seat" if they can mandate motor vehicle safety standards. Justice Barrett asked whether brokers have a duty to check carrier safety records, appearing to search for a middle ground.

Legal observers differ on the likely outcome. The Yale Journal on Regulation predicted a 7-2 decision but called the direction uncertain.

Why 29 States Filed a Brief Against the Brokers

Twenty-nine states plus the District of Columbia filed an amicus brief supporting Montgomery. This bipartisan coalition, led by Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost and California Attorney General Rob Bonta, included states from across the political spectrum: Texas, New York, Illinois, California, Montana, Oklahoma, Massachusetts, and West Virginia, among others.

Their argument was direct: states possess "historically held authority to regulate the safety of their roadways through statutes and tort law." Preempting negligent selection claims strips states of the ability to hold accountable the parties who choose which trucks go on their roads.

This matters beyond the legal argument. If the Court rules for C.H. Robinson, those 29 states will not simply accept that brokers are immune from liability. They will look for other legal theories, push for state legislation, and support federal bills that accomplish through statute what the Court prevented through preemption. The political infrastructure to impose broker liability already exists. The question is which legal mechanism delivers it.

The Legislative Response Already in Motion

Congress did not wait for the Supreme Court's decision. On December 18, 2025, Representative John Moolenaar (R-MI) introduced H.R. 6884, the Patrick and Barbara Kowalski Freight Brokers Safety Act. The bill is named after a couple killed in a truck-involved crash in 2022.

The bill would impose a civil penalty equal to 10% of the value of the contracted cargo for the entire contract if a broker works with a carrier that has three or more DOT violations within a five-year period. The same standard applies if a carrier employs a driver with three or more DOT violations in five years. Penalties would be deposited into the Highway Trust Fund.

TIA president Chris Burroughs called the bill "well-intentioned" but warned it could "ultimately undermine the highway safety it seeks to improve" by placing brokers in an "untenable position."

As of March 2026, the bill has no cosponsors and sits in committee. But its existence signals the direction Congress is moving. If the Supreme Court rules that brokers are preempted from state liability, the legislative pressure to create federal liability will intensify. H.R. 6884 is the first draft, not the last.

What Brokers Should Do Right Now (Regardless of Outcome)

The practical advice is the same whether Montgomery or C.H. Robinson prevails. The era of optional carrier vetting is over. If the Court rules against preemption, brokers face immediate state-law liability. If the Court rules for preemption, the political and legislative momentum toward broker accountability will produce the same result through a different mechanism within 12 to 24 months.

Formalize Your Carrier Vetting Process

1. Check every carrier against the full set of publicly available FMCSA safety data before booking: DOT status, MC authority, insurance, safety rating, BASIC scores, inspection history, out-of-service rates, and crash data. Use CarrierBrief's carrier vetting checklist, which runs authority, insurance, inspection, and safety checks in a single workflow with timestamped records, to standardize this across your team.
2. Set threshold criteria. Define the BASIC percentile, OOS rate, and inspection flags that require elevated review or rejection. Write them down. A written policy applied consistently is your strongest legal defense.
3. Re-vet established carriers at least every 12 months. A carrier you approved two years ago may have deteriorated since. BASIC scores change monthly. Insurance lapses happen without notice.

Document Everything

1. Record what you checked, when you checked it, who checked it, and what the result was for every carrier booking. This documentation is the difference between a defensible vetting process and an indefensible one.
2. Document your reasoning when you book a carrier despite yellow flags. "We booked despite a 58% Unsafe Driving BASIC because the score was based on 4 inspections and the most recent 2 were clean" is a defensible judgment call. Booking with no record of the reasoning is not.
3. Maintain these records for at least 5 years. The statute of limitations for negligent selection varies by state, and personal injury cases can take years to reach litigation.

Review Your Insurance

1. Confirm your broker liability policy covers contingent liability arising from carrier accidents.
2. Check whether your policy has specific exclusions or sublimits for negligent selection claims.
3. Consider increasing your coverage limits. The Institute for Safer Trucking's amicus brief noted that the average fatal truck crash costs $6.1 million in losses, while the federal minimum carrier liability coverage is $750,000. The gap between minimum coverage and real-world costs is where broker liability exposure lives.

Strengthen Your Broker-Carrier Agreements

1. Include clear independent contractor language that specifies the carrier controls equipment, personnel, routing, and operations.
2. Require indemnification provisions where the carrier agrees to hold the broker harmless for claims arising from the carrier's operations.
3. Require the carrier to maintain insurance above federal minimums and to provide evidence of coverage.
4. Include representations that the carrier will comply with all federal and state safety regulations.

Worked Example: The Same Accident Under Both Outcomes

The scenario: A broker books Carrier X based on authority and insurance checks only. Carrier X has a 72nd percentile Unsafe Driving BASIC, a vehicle OOS rate double the national average, and two DOT-reportable crashes in 12 months. The broker's system has no record of checking BASIC scores, inspections, or crash history. Carrier X's truck rear-ends a passenger vehicle on I-70 in Ohio, seriously injuring the occupant.

If Montgomery Wins (No Preemption)

The injured occupant sues the broker for negligent carrier selection under Ohio state law. The plaintiff's attorney pulls Carrier X's FMCSA record as of the booking date and shows the 72nd percentile BASIC score, the elevated OOS rate, and two recent crashes. The attorney asks for the broker's vetting records. The records show authority and insurance were checked but nothing else.

The attorney's argument writes itself: four safety data points were freely available, all showed elevated risk, and the broker checked none of them. Under the Sixth Circuit's holding in Cox v. Total Quality Logistics (which would be consistent with a Montgomery victory), this is a straightforward negligent selection claim. The broker faces trial.

If C.H. Robinson Wins (Preemption Holds)

The injured occupant cannot sue the broker under Ohio state law. But three things happen next. First, the plaintiff's attorney looks for alternative theories not covered by FAAAA preemption: vicarious liability based on operational control, or direct negligence based on scheduling pressure. Second, Ohio's attorney general (one of the 29 who filed the amicus brief) advocates for state legislation that imposes carrier vetting requirements on brokers through a regulatory framework that doesn't rely on tort claims. Third, if H.R. 6884 or a similar bill passes, the broker faces federal penalties because Carrier X's two recent crashes and elevated violation rate would trigger the three-violation threshold.

Same accident. Same vetting failure. Both outcomes eventually reach the broker. The preemption defense changes the timeline, not the destination. If that broker had run the carrier through CarrierBrief's carrier vetting checklist before booking, the 72nd percentile BASIC score, the doubled OOS rate, and the two recent crashes would have surfaced in a single workflow with a timestamped record. That record is the difference between facing trial and having a defensible file.

FAQ

What is Montgomery v. Caribe Transport about?

Montgomery v. Caribe Transport (No. 24-1238) is a Supreme Court case that will determine whether the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA) preempts state common-law negligent selection claims against freight brokers. The case arose from a 2017 truck collision in Illinois where the injured driver sued both the carrier and C.H. Robinson, the freight broker that arranged the load. Oral arguments were held March 4, 2026, and a decision is expected by the end of June 2026.

What is FAAAA preemption for freight brokers?

FAAAA preemption is a federal legal defense that prevents states from enforcing laws "related to a price, route, or service" of a freight broker. Under this defense, some courts have held that state-law negligent carrier selection claims are preempted because carrier selection is a core broker service. The FAAAA also contains a safety exception that preserves state authority over motor vehicle safety, and whether that exception covers broker liability is the central question in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport.

Can I still be sued as a freight broker if the Court rules for preemption?

Yes, through alternative legal theories. FAAAA preemption, if upheld, blocks negligent carrier selection claims specifically. Vicarious liability claims based on operational control, direct negligence claims based on broker conduct (like scheduling pressure), and federal penalty provisions under proposed legislation like H.R. 6884 would remain available. Additionally, 29 states have signaled intent to find alternative legal mechanisms to hold brokers accountable. Preemption narrows the legal pathway but does not eliminate broker liability exposure entirely.

How does this case affect small freight brokers?

Small brokers face disproportionate risk under either outcome. If preemption falls, small brokers without documented vetting processes face immediate litigation exposure with limited resources to defend. If preemption holds, legislative responses like H.R. 6884 could impose penalty structures that are harder for small brokers to absorb. Both outcomes favor brokers who formalize their vetting processes now, before the decision. The TIA and several amicus briefs specifically warned that expanded liability would push smaller brokers out of the market.

What carrier vetting should brokers do right now because of this case?

Check every carrier's DOT status, MC authority, insurance, safety rating, BASIC scores, inspection history, OOS rates, and crash history before booking. Document every check with timestamps. Set written threshold criteria for elevated review or rejection. Re-vet established carriers at least every 12 months. This level of vetting was already the standard of care under the Ninth and Sixth Circuit rulings, and Montgomery v. Caribe Transport will likely make it the national standard regardless of which side wins. Our carrier vetting checklist guide covers the full process step by step.

Why did 29 states support Montgomery against the broker?

Twenty-nine states plus D.C. filed an amicus brief arguing that states have historically held authority to regulate roadway safety through tort law, and that preempting negligent selection claims strips them of the ability to hold accountable the parties who choose which trucks operate on their roads. The coalition was bipartisan, including both traditionally business-friendly states (Texas, Ohio, Montana) and regulatory-leaning states (California, New York, Massachusetts). Their participation signals that state-level action to impose broker liability will follow regardless of the Court's ruling.

What is the Kowalski Freight Brokers Safety Act?

H.R. 6884, the Patrick and Barbara Kowalski Freight Brokers Safety Act, is a bill introduced in December 2025 that would impose federal civil penalties on brokers who hire carriers with three or more DOT violations within five years. The penalty would equal 10% of the contracted cargo value for the entire contract. The bill was introduced by Rep. John Moolenaar (R-MI) and referred to committee. As of March 2026 it has no cosponsors, but it represents the first legislative attempt to create federal broker accountability for carrier selection, and similar bills are likely to follow.

Has the Supreme Court decided Montgomery v. Caribe Transport yet?

No. As of March 18, 2026, the Supreme Court has not issued its decision. Oral arguments were held on March 4, 2026. The Court typically issues opinions for cases argued in the current term by the end of June. The decision could come at any time between now and late June 2026. We will update this post when the ruling is issued.

The Bottom Line

Paul Clement told the Supreme Court that 94% of registered carriers have never received a meaningful federal safety inspection. Whether the Court agrees that state tort law should fill that gap or sides with C.H. Robinson's preemption argument, the 29 states, the pending legislation, and the plaintiffs' bar are all moving in the same direction. The preemption defense that brokers have relied on in the Seventh and Eleventh Circuits is either about to be struck down by the Court or legislated around by Congress. Stop waiting for the opinion. Formalize your vetting process, document every carrier selection decision, and build the record now, because by the time the decision comes down, the brokers who prepared will have six months of defensible documentation, and the ones who didn't will be scrambling to build it under a spotlight.