The U.S. Supreme Court has set a merits-briefing timeline in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II that will carry the long-running broker-liability fight into early 2026: the petitioner’s brief and joint appendix are due December 1, the respondents’ brief is due January 14, and the petitioner’s reply is due February 13. Those dates, issued in a November 13 order, put the industry on notice that a definitive answer on whether the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA) preempts negligent-selection claims against brokers is moving on schedule.
The schedule follows a request from Montgomery’s counsel, Paul D. Clement of Clement & Murphy, underscoring the case’s profile and the stakes for the brokerage sector. Clement is listed as counsel of record on the Supreme Court docket, and FreightWaves first reported that the Court agreed to the proposed dates.
Practically, the briefing cadence means the Court can hear arguments once filings close in mid-February. While argument dates are set separately, the Court’s published guidance on case distribution helps explain how petitions and briefs move toward conference and argument—an indicator that this case is positioned for spring consideration and a decision by the end of the term.
For context, FreightWaves has noted that the justices accepted Montgomery after years of conflicting lower-court outcomes over how far the FAAAA’s preemption and its “safety exception” reach. The Ninth and Sixth Circuits have allowed negligent-selection claims to proceed against brokers, while the Seventh and Eleventh have said preemption bars those suits—an even split that has fueled uncertainty in contracts, insurance, and litigation strategy across lanes.
One closely watched companion matter—Cox v. Total Quality Logistics—remains on the Court’s docket without a grant or denial of review. The case was distributed for the September 29 conference and has not moved since, a posture consistent with holding it pending a merits decision in Montgomery.
Why this matters for trucking now: the briefing order opens a predictable window for amici on both sides, and it gives carriers, brokers, and shippers a timetable for risk planning. Brokers operating in jurisdictions that currently allow negligent-selection claims face immediate litigation exposure; in jurisdictions that bar them, plaintiffs’ lawyers may seek stays or preserve claims pending the Supreme Court’s ruling. Either way, the next three months are a prime time to tighten carrier-vetting files, refresh safety due-diligence checklists, and confirm documentation practices—steps that can blunt damages theories regardless of how the Court draws the legal line.
Insurance programs are in play, too. Underwriters that have priced policies against a patchwork of rules may reexamine reserves and endorsements as merits briefs surface. Expect questions about contractual risk transfer (indemnity and additional-insured provisions), how brokers evidence carrier safety screening, and whether shippers are demanding more paper around selection decisions. The briefing schedule lets insurers and insureds align renewal timelines with the Court’s milestones rather than waiting in the dark.
What’s next: watch for the December 1 petitioner filing to frame the safety-exception arguments and for respondents’ January brief to test the boundaries of what counts as a broker “service” under the FAAAA. If the Court follows its typical rhythm, oral argument should land after the reply deadline, with a ruling that could reset liability expectations for 3PLs, carriers, and shippers before peak summer shipping season.
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.
