Supreme Court rules 9-0 in Montgomery case

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 9-0 on May 14 that freight brokers are not automatically shielded from state-law negligent-hiring suits when a crash involves a motor carrier they selected. In Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, the justices held that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act’s safety exception can preserve those claims even if the statute’s preemption clause would otherwise apply. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the opinion for a unanimous court. The ruling sends Shawn Montgomery’s case back to the lower courts after the Seventh Circuit had sided with broker C.H. Robinson Worldwide. ### Which lawsuit produced the ruling? Shawn Montgomery sued after a Dec. 7, 2017 crash on Interstate 70 in Illinois left him with severe and permanent injuries, according to the Supreme Court opinion and SCOTUSblog. The case arose after Montgomery’s tractor-trailer was struck by a truck driven by Yosniel Varela-Mojena, who was hauling a load for Caribe Transport II, LLC. C.H. Robinson Worldwide had arranged the shipment as a broker. Montgomery alleged that Robinson negligently hired Caribe Transport and that the company knew, or should have known, that the carrier’s safety record made a crash reasonably likely, the Supreme Court’s syllabus said. ### What federal law was the Court interpreting? The Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 bars states from enforcing laws related to a broker’s or motor carrier’s prices, routes or services with respect to the transportation of property. (supremecourt.gov) C.H. Robinson argued that Montgomery’s negligent-hiring claim fell within that preemption rule and therefore could not go forward. Section 14501(c)(2)(A) of the same law contains a safety exception. That provision says the preemption clause “shall not restrict the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles,” and the case turned on whether a negligent-hiring claim against a broker fit inside that carveout. ### Why did the justices say the safety exception covers this kind of claim? (supremecourt.gov) Justice Barrett wrote that all parties agreed common-law duties and standards of care are part of a state’s authority to regulate safety. The opinion said negligent-hiring claims impose a duty of reasonable care when a company hires a contractor to do work that carries a risk of physical harm. (supremecourt.gov) The Court then focused on the phrase “with respect to motor vehicles.” Barrett concluded that claims like Montgomery’s qualify because they concern the use of motor vehicles in transportation, rather than some more remote subject. SCOTUSblog reported that the Court read “with respect to” according to its ordinary meaning and rejected the broker’s narrower reading. (supremecourt.gov) ### What did the lower courts do before the Supreme Court stepped in? The U.S. District Court held that the FAAAA expressly preempted Montgomery’s negligent-hiring claim and that the safety exception did not save it. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed that ruling on Jan. 3, 2025. The Supreme Court granted review on Oct. 3, 2025, after a split had developed among federal appeals courts over whether similar broker-liability claims survive under the safety exception. (supremecourt.gov) SCOTUSblog said the Seventh Circuit’s approach conflicted with rulings from the Sixth and Ninth Circuits. ### Who argued the case at the Supreme Court? Paul D. (supremecourt.gov) Clement argued for Montgomery at the March 4, 2026 hearing in Washington. Theodore J. Boutrous Jr. argued for the respondents, and Assistant to the Solicitor General Sopan Joshi appeared for the United States as amicus curiae supporting the respondents, according to the official transcript. (supremecourt.gov) The docket shows the petition was filed on June 2, 2025, granted on Oct. 3, 2025, and argued on March 4, 2026. The opinion was issued on May 14, 2026. ### What happens next in Montgomery’s case? The Supreme Court’s May 14 decision means the Seventh Circuit’s judgment no longer blocks Montgomery’s negligent-hiring claim at the threshold. The case now goes back to the lower courts for further proceedings consistent with the justices’ ruling. (supremecourt.gov) The next public milestones are likely to appear on the Seventh Circuit and district court dockets as the remanded case resumes against C.H. (supremecourt.gov) Robinson, Caribe Transport II and the other defendants. (supremecourt.gov)