Supreme Court Weighs State Tort Liability for Freight Brokers

The US Supreme Court questioned whether Congress intended to shield freight brokers from liability for crashes involving carriers they hire when it deregulated the trucking industry more than 30 years ago.

During argument on Wednesday, the Trump administration and counsel for C.H. Robinson, the world’s largest freight broker, warned that permitting state tort claims against brokers would force them to investigate every carrier they contracted with for possible safety violations. They said that would disrupt the national trucking industry.

“They can rely, in fact they’re supposed to rely, on the federal government’s licensing” of carriers, Theodore Boutrous, a Gibson Dunn partner representing C.H. Robinson, said.

Use of brokers has increased exponentially since Congress deregulated the trucking industry and largely preempted state laws in the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994. Prior to the act, there were a few hundred such brokers. Now there are more than 25,000 operating as a key link in the freight transportation system, Boutrous said.

The statute includes a carve out preserving state authority to regulate motor vehicle safety. Petitioner Shawn Montgomery argues that the provision permits his negligent-hiring claim to proceed in connection with a 2017 crash in Illinois.

Montgomery suffered catastrophic injuries when a tractor-trailer operated by Caribe Transport struck him. He sued both Caribe and C.H. Robinson, alleging the broker failed to exercise reasonable care in selecting the carrier.

A district court judge in Illinois dismissed the case as barred by the authorizing law. The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed.

Representing Montgomery, Paul Clement of Clement & Murphy said shielding freight brokers from liability creates a glaring safety issue for industry because more than 90% of carriers operating receive little to no meaningful federal inspection.

“It would be really nice if the state tort system provided a backstop to a federal system that’s not doing a lot,” Clement said.

Four circuits have split on the question of whether suits like Montgomery’s are allowed. The Sixth and Ninth agree with Clement—and a coalition of 30 states that filed an amicus brief in support of Montgomery—that states maintain their regulatory authority. The Seventh and Eleventh have held otherwise.

Led by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the court questioned whether granting Montgomery’s petition wouldn’t result in fewer truck accidents.

“They say because brokers are going to dig in and not hire or arrange with shaky truck drivers,” Kavanaugh said.

“That could well be true, but that would be a result of fewer trucks on the road, which means worse interstate commerical motor delivery services,” said Sopan Joshi, an assistant to the solicitor general who argued for the government.

The case could have nationwide impacts on how much oversight states can exert on the shipping industry. American Truckers United, an advocacy organization that lobbies on behalf of industry, says eliminating tort liability for freight brokers would prompt a “race to the bottom” for carriers looking to cut costs.

A decision is expected by July.

The case is Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, U.S., No. 24-1238, argued on 3/4/26.