The U.S. Supreme Court has set the pace for the high‑stakes fight over freight broker liability. On Thursday, November 13, 2025, the justices granted a scheduling request that puts petitioner briefs and the joint appendix for Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC (No. 24‑1238) due December 1, with respondents’ merits brief now due January 14, 2026. That order gives the trucking and brokerage sectors a concrete timeline for when arguments over federal preemption will crystallize on paper.
The case—closely watched across the logistics ecosystem—tests how far federal law shields brokers from state negligent‑selection claims. While the underlying legal debate has simmered for years, Thursday’s order is the fresh development that matters operationally: it locks in a winter briefing track that could position the Court to set oral argument later in the Term once filings are complete.
The petitioner, truck driver Shawn Montgomery, is represented by former U.S. solicitor general Paul D. Clement—an unmistakable signal that the case will be argued at the highest level of appellate firepower. The Supreme Court’s docket entry lists Clement as counsel of record for Montgomery.
Why this schedule matters for trucking and 3PLs: first, it concentrates industry attention around two key dates when merits arguments will be fully framed. Expect a wave of amicus briefs to follow each principal filing, giving trade groups, shippers, insurers and safety advocates a tight window to weigh in on how preemption should apply to brokers’ carrier‑selection practices. Second, the timeline reduces uncertainty about when legal risk signals will emerge for underwriting and contracting in 2026. Brokers that have tightened vetting protocols—carrier monitoring, documentation of selection criteria, and auditing of safety data—will want those policies current before the December and January filings surface, because those documents often define what “reasonable” looks like in the eyes of courts and insurers.
The timeline also affects active litigation strategy. With a Supreme Court briefing schedule now in place, parties in cases raising the same preemption issue are more likely to seek short stays or extensions until the justices speak—an approach that can limit duplicative costs and inconsistent outcomes. For smaller brokerages, the practical takeaway is planning: review indemnity language, refresh carrier on‑boarding checklists, and prepare talking points for shipper customers who will ask what this case could mean for service continuity if negligent‑selection theories are either curbed or allowed to proceed more broadly.
What to watch next: petitioner’s brief on December 1, followed by the respondents’ brief on January 14. Those filings will spotlight the operational touchpoints most at risk—how brokers evaluate carriers, what role federal safety data should play, and whether state tort standards can reach brokerage “services” at all. Once those arguments are on the table, the Court can slot the case for argument and, ultimately, deliver the clarity brokers, carriers and shippers have lacked.
Sources: FreightWaves, Supreme Court of the United States docket, SCOTUSblog
This article was prepared exclusively for TruckStopInsider.com. Republishing is permitted only with proper credit and a link back to the original source.
