Earlier this week, Eden Prairie, Minn.-based global third-party logistics (3PL) services provider and freight forwarder C.H. Robinson filed a merits brief in a United States Supreme Court case, Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, which it said “will determine whether freight brokers may be held liable under varying state laws for accidents involving federally licensed motor carriers.”
This follows a request made to the Supreme Court in 2025 that the company said focuses on an issue that is viewed as critical in order to preserve the federal system that regulates and also ensures uniformity for motor carrier services, including brokerage services, which it described as a framework supporting reliable supply chains and consistent safety oversight, adding that the Supreme Court has granted review.
C.H. Robinson will present its oral argument before the Supreme Court on March 4.
“For nearly a century, federal law has provided one clear set of rules for how freight moves across the country. That clarity matters for safety and for the economy,” said Dorothy Capers, Chief Legal Officer, C.H. Robinson. “Our brief asks the Court to reaffirm that framework so responsibilities remain where they belong—and goods keep moving reliably for families and businesses nationwide. Permitting 50 different state court systems and precedents to impose their own standards on the selection of federally licensed motor carriers would fragment a system built for consistency, create conflicting rules for the same shipment, and increase costs and uncertainty across the supply chains that keep goods moving nationwide. A unified federal framework not only reduces confusion—it helps ensure that safety oversight remains focused and effective where it matters most.”
The Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC case was granted certiorari by the Supreme Court in October, with the outcome of the case having the potential to reshape how liability is assigned to freight brokers when selecting a federal approved carrier, the company noted—adding that it called on the Court to take up the case and affirm the lower court’s decision stating that federal law preempts state-level negligent selection claims against brokers.
What’s more, the company observed that this represents the first time the Supreme Court will directly address whether the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (FAAAA) preempts state tort claims against freight brokers.
“While the name suggests aviation, FAAAA also governs motor carriers and freight brokers,” it said. “Its preemption clause limits states from enforcing laws related to broker services, with a narrow exception for safety regulations. The outcome could bring clarity to a fragmented legal landscape and reduce exposure to inconsistent state-level litigation.”
Addressing the potential outcome of this case, C.H. Robinson explained that a ruling affirming federal preemption would reduce exposure to what it called inconsistent state-level litigation, as well as preserve competition and ensure the free flow of interstate commerce—and also provide “much needed” certainty for brokers, carriers, and shippers operating across state lines.
In a research note, Daniel Moore, Baird & Co. analyst, shared Robinson’s sentiment that the outcome will shape regulatory clarity and liability exposure across the brokerage industry. But he also observed that the Supreme Court has been presented with similar cases in the past, and there is nothing novel about Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II aside from the reality that a critical mass of conflicting outcomes has now developed across jurisdictions.
“The Court must determine whether the safety exception applies to these causes of action or not,” wrote Moore. “Only SCOTUS can resolve this interpretive divide, presumably by setting a uniform standard that either permits or preempts the state negligence claims against brokers.”
Chris Burroughs, president & CEO of the Transportation Intermediaries Assocation, told LM that for nearly a century, Congress has recognized that freight moving across state lines requires one national set of rules.
“Upholding federal preemption ensures accountability remains where it belongs and prevents a fragmented system that would raise costs and uncertainty for businesses and consumers alike,” said Burroughs.
