The U.S. Supreme Court has put firm dates on Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, the long-awaited case that could decide whether freight brokers face state-law negligence claims for carrier selection. In a Nov. 13 order, the justices granted a scheduling motion that sets Dec. 1, 2025, for the petitioner’s merits brief and joint appendix, and Jan. 14, 2026, for the respondents’ brief. An oral-argument date has not yet been assigned.
The schedule matters because it formally starts the march to a definitive answer on a question that has split federal appeals courts: does the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act’s preemption clause bar negligent-selection claims against brokers, or does the law’s “safety exception” leave room for such suits after crashes? FreightWaves first reported the scheduling development and noted that, under the briefing cadence, the petitioner’s reply would follow in mid-February, positioning the case for arguments later in the term.
The case arises from a 2017 Illinois crash that seriously injured truck driver Shawn Montgomery. Although C.H. Robinson is no longer a party after prevailing in the lower courts, its brokerage role in arranging the load at issue is central to the Supreme Court fight over broker exposure for carrier vetting decisions.
Thursday’s order also confirms the high-powered teams on both sides. Paul D. Clement is counsel of record for Montgomery, while Warren L. Dean Jr. leads for C.H. Robinson and its related respondents—signaling a full-court press from industry and plaintiffs alike as the case moves into merits briefing.
Why it matters for trucking and logistics: a ruling that allows negligent-selection claims against brokers would force a deeper rethink of carrier onboarding and monitoring. Expect more rigorous documentation of safety vetting beyond checking federal authority and insurance; tighter use of third-party monitoring tools; and contract revisions that clarify roles and responsibilities between shippers, brokers and carriers. Insurers will be watching closely, too—merits briefs and any supporting amicus filings will shape expectations for liability exposure, premium pressure and retention levels across broker E&O, auto liability and excess layers.
Conversely, if the Court reads FAAAA preemption broadly and shuts the door on such claims, brokers would gain uniform national certainty. That outcome would likely freeze today’s patchwork of risk, with crash liability continuing to rest primarily on motor carriers and their insurers, while leaving FMCSA’s compliance framework—not state tort duties—as the principal guardrail for safety-related selection practices. For shippers and small carriers, either outcome changes the math on who eats the loss when something goes wrong, and how much diligence, indemnity and data-sharing will be demanded up front.
What to watch next: the petitioner’s Dec. 1 brief will reveal how Montgomery frames the “safety exception” and what factual predicates he urges the Court to treat as negligent broker conduct. The respondents’ Jan. 14 filing will preview how far the industry will push for a bright-line ruling that keeps broker services within FAAAA’s preemption shield. SCOTUS has not posted an argument date; the docket only memorializes the new briefing deadlines.
Bottom line: with the schedule now set, this case moves from “if” to “when.” Brokers, shippers and carriers have a short runway to pressure-test their vetting protocols, contracts and insurance programs ahead of a decision that could reallocate risk across the modern freight marketplace.
Sources: FreightWaves (via Yahoo News), 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.
