Opinion Summary: Montgomery v. Caribe Transport | The Court Chooses Highway Safety Over Federal Preemption

Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC | Case No. 24-1238 | Decided May 14, 2026 | Docket Link: Here

Question Presented: Whether the FAAAA's safety exception permits negligent-hiring claims against transportation brokers who arrange shipments with unsafe motor carriers.

Overview: Truck crash victim challenges federal preemption of state tort claims against transportation brokers, testing whether states retain authority to impose negligent-hiring liability on brokers who select carriers with poor safety records.

Posture: Seventh Circuit affirmed district court preemption ruling; circuit split over broker liability.

Interview with Marc Blubaugh: Here

Main Arguments:

Montgomery (Petitioner):

• (1) Negligent-hiring claims concern motor vehicles because they regulate which trucks transport goods on highways;
• (2) Safety exception preserves traditional state tort law policing dangerous conduct;
• (3) Brokers selecting unsafe carriers directly threaten highway safety and public welfare.

C.H. Robinson (Respondent):

• (1) Brokers neither own trucks nor hire drivers, making claims unrelated to motor vehicles;
• (2) Safety exception limited to vehicle-specific regulations like inspections and maintenance standards;
• (3) Subsection (b) excludes brokers from safety regulation, making subsection (c) identical interpretation required.

Holding: The FAAAA does not preempt negligent hiring claims made against transportation brokers because States retain authority to regulate safety “with respect to motor vehicles” under the FAAAA.

Voting Breakdown: 9-0. Justice Barrett wrote the majority opinion joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Jackson. Justice Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion joined by Alito. Reversed and remanded.

Majority Reasoning: (1) Claims "with respect to motor vehicles" means claims that "concern" vehicles used in transportation, applying ordinary meaning and Dan's City Used Cars precedent; (2) Requiring brokers to exercise reasonable care when selecting carriers concerns the trucks transporting goods most obviously; (3) Safety exception saves only motor-vehicle-safety-related claims, leaving price and route regulations preempted, avoiding swallow-the-rule problem.

Separate Opinions: Kavanaugh concurrence (joined by Alito): Case presents closer questions than majority suggests; contextual considerations point both directions; insurance coverage dichotomy and intrastate-interstate anomaly favor brokers; economic-deregulation structure and federal-regulation absence favor Montgomery; brokers retain defenses through reasonableness standard and proximate cause requirements.

Implications: Transportation brokers face potential state tort liability when selecting motor carriers with poor safety records, affecting 28,000 brokers arranging one-third of domestic freight shipments. Courts must develop standards defining reasonable broker due diligence in carrier selection. Ruling creates enforcement asymmetry permitting state safety regulation for interstate but not intrastate broker arrangements, potentially inviting constitutional challenge to subsection (b) preemption authority.

The Fine Print:

• 49 U.S.C. §14501(c)(1): "A State may not enact or enforce a law, regulation, or other provision having the force and effect of law related to a price, route, or service of any motor carrier or broker with respect to the transportation of property."
• 49 U.S.C. §14501(c)(2)(A): The preemption provision "shall not restrict the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles."

Primary Cases:

• Dan's City Used Cars, Inc. v. Pelkey (2013): "With respect to" means "concerns" in FAAAA preemption provision context, establishing ordinary-meaning approach to statutory interpretation of preemption scope.
• Kurns v. Railroad Friction Products Corp. (2012): State common-law duties and standards of care constitute "potent method of governing conduct and controlling policy" within state regulatory authority over safety matters.