The U.S. Supreme Court has put the first pins in the calendar for Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, the closely watched case that will determine how far federal law shields freight brokers from state negligent-selection claims. On Thursday, November 13, the Court granted a scheduling request and set new deadlines that start the formal merits phase.
Under the order, the joint appendix and the petitioner’s opening brief are due December 1, 2025. The brokers’ side — including respondent C.H. Robinson — must file its merits brief by January 14, 2026. A reply from the petitioner is expected to follow in mid‑February; the filing guidance referenced in coverage pegs February 13 as the reply date. Argument has not yet been set.
The petitioner, truck driver Shawn Montgomery, is represented by Supreme Court specialist Paul Clement, a former U.S. solicitor general — a signal that both sides are treating the case as a term‑defining dispute for the logistics sector. The respondents on the docket are C.H. Robinson entities, placing one of the country’s largest 3PLs at the center of a case with nationwide implications.
Why it matters for carriers and brokers: this case asks whether federal preemption under the FAAAA blocks state‑law negligent selection claims against brokers — the kind that allege a 3PL did not adequately vet a motor carrier or driver before arranging a load. The Court’s schedule means merits briefs will run into mid‑January, making a spring argument window plausible and keeping operational uncertainty in place through at least the first half of 2026.
Operational implications now: with the briefing schedule locked in, brokers should treat the next 60–90 days as a risk‑management “audit window.” That includes tightening and documenting carrier vetting protocols; ensuring contracts reflect clear roles and responsibilities; validating that insurance coverage is aligned with negligent‑selection exposure; and preparing incident files with contemporaneous screening evidence. None of these steps prejudge the legal outcome — they simply reduce litigation risk while the Court considers the question.
What to watch next: the December 1 brief will frame the petitioner’s theory of preemption and how the safety‑exception should be read in the broker context. Expect a surge of amicus activity aligned with each side’s filing dates, given the stakes for shippers, insurers, and intermediaries. The respondents’ January 14 brief will likely stress how state tort rules can re‑write broker services, while amici may spotlight knock‑on effects for capacity, pricing, and insurance.
Bottom line: the Supreme Court has moved the broker‑liability debate from “if” to “when.” With firm briefing dates in place, the industry should assume clarity will come in 2026 — and use the intervening months to standardize vetting and documentation so practices are defensible no matter how the Court draws the line.
Sources: FreightWaves, Supreme Court of the United States, Yahoo News
This article was prepared exclusively for TruckStopInsider.com. Republishing is permitted only with proper credit and a link back to the original source.
