The U.S. Supreme Court has put a clock on the closely watched fight over freight-broker liability. In Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, justices granted a request last week to shift the merits-briefing deadlines: the petitioner’s opening brief and the joint appendix are now due December 1, 2025, with the respondents’ brief due January 14, 2026. No oral-argument date has been posted yet. The scheduling order signals that the Court is aiming to hear the case in early 2026 and decide it by term’s end.
Why it matters: the case asks whether the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA) preempts state negligent-selection claims against freight brokers—or whether those claims survive under the statute’s “safety exception.” The answer will unify a fractured legal landscape where some circuits allow plaintiffs to sue brokers over carrier vetting and others say federal law blocks those suits. FreightWaves previously noted that after years of split decisions—including the Ninth Circuit’s Miller v. C.H. Robinson and the Sixth Circuit’s Cox v. TQL—the justices agreed to take Montgomery, setting up a precedent that could reset liability exposure for the brokerage sector.
What changes now for brokers and their customers
- Risk planning on a calendar: With the opening brief due December 1 and the defense brief in mid‑January, expect a burst of filings around those dates and clearer signals on how the parties—and amici—frame the “safety exception.” Compliance and legal teams should align internal reviews with that cadence so any policy adjustments can be teed up ahead of oral argument.
- Vetting practices under the microscope: Regardless of where a fleet or 3PL operates, the Court’s ruling will either nationalize a duty to select “safe” carriers under state law or confirm that such claims are preempted. Either outcome argues for documented, consistent carrier‑qualification protocols that go beyond check‑the‑box compliance. This is especially important for shippers relying on brokers for lane coverage during peak season when tender rejections rise.
- Litigation posture: Parties with active negligent‑selection suits may consider asking trial courts to pause proceedings pending the Supreme Court decision, while insurers reassess reserves tied to broker-led freight moves. A uniform rule could materially shift settlement leverage mid‑2026.
What’s still in limbo: a separate petition from Total Quality Logistics in Cox remains pending, and industry attorneys expect the Court to hold that matter until after Montgomery is resolved, given the overlapping question presented. For now, there’s no indication on the docket that the justices have moved Cox forward.
The bottom line for trucking: Clarity is finally on the horizon. If the Court says the FAAAA preempts negligent‑selection claims, broker liability will narrow and operational focus will shift toward contract terms and FMCSR compliance. If the Court says the safety exception saves those claims, brokers could face expanded exposure nationwide, spurring deeper carrier due diligence, tighter data sharing with shippers, and potentially higher costs to reflect litigation risk. Either path will ripple through carrier onboarding, insurance pricing, and shipper‑broker agreements starting as soon as the decision lands late next spring or early summer.
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.
