In a unanimous 9-0 ruling, the Supreme Court handed down a major decision that could reshape the trucking and logistics industry by allowing freight brokers to face state negligence lawsuits for hiring unsafe carriers. Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the opinion in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, rejecting arguments that federal law broadly shields freight brokers from liability when crashes occur involving carriers they selected.
The case stems from a devastating 2017 crash in Illinois involving truck driver Shawn Montgomery.
Advertisement
Montgomery lost part of his leg after a truck slammed into his parked tractor-trailer along Interstate 70.
Montgomery argued that freight giant C.H. Robinson, one of the nation’s largest freight brokers, should share responsibility because it allegedly hired a trucking company despite significant warning signs.
According to court filings, Montgomery’s attorneys said the truck driver involved had previously been cited for careless driving in another crash just months earlier.
They also argued the carrier had been involved in at least three crashes over roughly five months before the Illinois collision.
Montgomery’s lawsuit alleges C.H. Robinson ignored those concerns and still placed the carrier on the road.
The legal fight centered on the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994, commonly known as the FAAAA.
Freight brokers argued the law blocks state-level lawsuits involving broker services because it broadly preempts state regulation tied to pricing, routes and services.
Advertisement
Lower courts had sided with that interpretation. But the Supreme Court unanimously disagreed.
Barrett concluded that the law’s “safety exception” allows states to enforce claims involving motor vehicle safety, including negligent hiring allegations against brokers.
The justices determined that selecting which carriers operate on public highways directly concerns roadway safety.
The ruling does not mean Montgomery automatically wins his lawsuit. C.H. Robinson can still contest the claims in a lower court.
But the decision opens the door for similar lawsuits nationwide and removes what had been a powerful federal defense for freight brokers.
Advertisement
The Trump administration and major companies, including Amazon, had argued against allowing the lawsuit to proceed, warning that exposing brokers to liability would create a patchwork of state legal standards.
Industry groups warned the decision could increase litigation, raise insurance costs, and slow freight operations as brokers are forced to conduct more intensive carrier vetting.
Montgomery’s appeal received support from more than two dozen states, which argued that holding brokers accountable would improve safety in an industry responsible for moving massive volumes of goods across the country every day.
The ruling also resolves a split among federal appeals courts, creating a uniform national standard moving forward.
For the freight industry, it marks one of the most consequential legal decisions in years and could significantly change how brokers select trucking partners.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the abortion pill Mifepristone can continue to be available by mail without requiring an in-person appointment with a clinician, The Associated Press reported.
The decision comes after a ruling by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans on May 1 that threatened widespread access to the pill.
Advertisement
The nation’s highest court granted emergency requests from drugmakers Danco Laboratories and GenBioPro to block the appeals court ruling.
The decision marks a setback for the state of Louisiana and ensures that litigation will not disrupt access to the drug.
On May 4, the court, led by conservative Justice Samuel Alito, had provisionally paused the appeals court ruling while the justices considered their next steps, according to multiple published reports.
Two of the court’s conservative justices, Alito and Clarence Thomas, dissented.
Thomas, noting that mailing mifepristone is illegal under Louisiana law, sharply criticized the drug manufacturers, arguing they were not entitled to block a court order “based on lost profits from their criminal enterprise.”
This article may contain commentary
which reflects the author’s opinion.
