The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday, October 3, agreed to hear Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, a case that goes to the heart of whether federal law shields freight brokers from state tort claims alleging negligent carrier selection. The grant sets up a long-awaited test of 49 U.S.C. §14501(c) — the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act preemption clause — and whether it bars negligence suits against brokers. The case is docketed as 24-1238 for the Court’s October 2025 term, with argument timing still to be set.
Why it matters: for years, brokers have operated under a patchwork of rules that turns on geography. Two federal appeals courts (the Seventh and Eleventh Circuits) have read the statute to block negligent-selection claims against brokers, while two others (the Sixth and Ninth) say those claims can proceed under the law’s “safety exception.” The Supreme Court’s review is poised to end that divergence and provide a nationwide rule of the road.
The justices’ move tracks what industry lawyers have called an urgent need for clarity. FreightWaves first reported the grant and noted that a second petition — Total Quality Logistics’ appeal in Cox v. TQL, which raises the same preemption question from the opposite posture — was considered at the same September 29 conference but has not yet been acted on, leaving its fate unclear. If the Court later takes Cox as well, it could pair the matters or use one to guide the other; if not, Cox could be held or sent back after Montgomery is decided.
The question the Court accepted is clean and consequential: does §14501(c) preempt a state common-law claim against a broker for negligently selecting a motor carrier or driver? Framed that way, the dispute squarely tees up the statute’s safety carveout — which preserves state “safety regulatory authority…with respect to motor vehicles” — and whether negligent selection is close enough to vehicle safety to escape preemption, or instead is a challenge to “broker services” that federal law reserves from state regulation.
For trucking’s commercial ecosystem, the stakes are practical, not academic. A ruling that forecloses negligent-selection suits would reduce forum-shopping and liability volatility for intermediaries, likely influencing broker E&O pricing and litigation strategy. A ruling that allows such claims would entrench duties of care in carrier vetting and could expand discovery into brokers’ safety screens, onboarding criteria, and monitoring — pressure that falls heaviest on smaller shops with thinner compliance budgets. That risk landscape is exactly what industry counsel flagged in reacting to Friday’s grant.
What to watch next: argument scheduling for Montgomery later this term, and whether the Court relists, grants, or otherwise disposes of the Cox petition. However the justices sequence the two, the Court’s first full look at broker-liability preemption in years means shippers, carriers, and 3PLs should prepare now — by tightening documentation of carrier qualification steps, aligning contracts with chosen vetting standards, and ensuring safety oversight practices do not inadvertently create agency relationships.
Bottom line: the Supreme Court’s grant signals that national clarity on broker-liability preemption is finally coming. Until it does, the cross-country compliance maze remains in place — and the second petition at the Court’s doorstep could determine how comprehensive that clarity will be.
Sources: FreightWaves, SCOTUSblog, Hanson Bridgett, Duane Morris, Benesch
This article was prepared exclusively for TruckStopInsider.com. Republishing is permitted only with proper credit and a link back to the original source.
