The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case involving the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA), and a term commonly referred to as the “safety exception,” granting certiorari in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC.
The Seventh Circuit’s underlying decision deepened a longstanding split among federal circuits over whether the FAAAA preempts negligence claims against freight brokers based on a variety of conduct, including their selection of motor carriers—and, even so, if the statute’s “safety exception” allows such claims to proceed.
Why is this case important to the transportation industry?
Freight brokers currently face inconsistent liability exposure across different federal circuits and between state and federal courts. Depending on where a shipment originates or where a lawsuit is filed, claims against brokers may be preempted—or allowed to proceed. A single, binding Supreme Court decision will provide uniformity, reduce forum shopping, and clarify risk exposure to those that hire motor carriers to move freight in the United States.
Background: The Accident and the Litigation
The case stems from a crash involving a tractor-trailer hauling plastic pots. The truck veered off the road and collided with the parked tractor-trailer of Shawn Montgomery on the shoulder of an Illinois highway, causing severe injuries.
Montgomery sued the driver, motor carrier, and freight broker that arranged the shipment, alleging that the freight broker was vicariously liable for the driver and carrier and negligent in selecting the carrier and driver.
The district court granted partial summary judgment for the motor carrier on vicarious liability, finding the driver and carrier were independent contractors not under the freight broker’s control.
The court later entered judgment for the freight broker on the negligent hiring claims based on controlling Seventh Circuit precedent in Ye v. GlobalTranz Enterprises, Inc., which held that the FAAAA expressly preempts state negligent hiring claims against freight brokers.
The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision, and both sides petitioned the Supreme Court. Montgomery sought reversal, while the freight broker sought nationwide clarity for the brokerage industry. The court has agreed to hear the issue.
Key Issues Before the Supreme Court
At the center of the case is how the FAAAA interacts with claims imposing state tort liability standards or obligations on a broker related to motor carrier operations. Although common-law negligence claims are recognized in most states, Congress enacted the FAAAA and the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act to further its desire for continued deregulation and to prevent states from imposing conflicting regulations on motor carriers and freight brokers.
The FAAAA prohibits states from enforcing laws “related to a price, route, or service of any motor carrier … or any motor private carrier, broker, or freight forwarder with respect to the transportation of property.”
However, the statute also includes a savings clause known as the safety exception, which preserves “the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles.”
The Supreme Court will address two key questions:
- Does deregulation and the FAAAA preempt claims imposing state tort liability standards or obligations on a broker related to motor carrier operations?
- If so, does the savings clause’s safety exception allow those claims to proceed?
Circuit Split: Four Courts, Two Approaches
The Supreme Court intervened to hear a clear split among federal appellate courts:
Circuits Holding Claims Are Preempted and the Saving Clause’s Safety Exception Does Not Apply
- Seventh Circuit: Ye v. GlobalTranz Enters., Inc.
- Eleventh Circuit: Aspen Am. Ins. Co. v. Landstar Ranger, Inc.
These courts hold that the FAAAA expressly preempts negligent hiring claims and that such claims do not fall under the savings clause’s safety exception.
Circuits Holding Claims Are Preempted but Saved by the Savings Clause’s Safety Exception
- Sixth Circuit: Cox v. Total Quality Logistics, Inc.
- Ninth Circuit: Miller v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.
These courts agree on preemption but interpret the saving clause’s safety exception more broadly, concluding that claims promote motor vehicle safety and therefore survive.
What’s Next?
On November 6, the parties submitted a Motion for Extension of Time along with a proposed briefing schedule. The court approved that schedule on November 13. Under the order, Montgomery’s brief is due December 1; the response brief is due January 14, 2026; and the reply brief is due February 13, 2026. Oral argument will take place at the end of February 2026. The Supreme Court is expected to issue its decision in the summer of 2026.
The ruling will be binding nationwide and will hopefully resolve the uncertainty that has divided federal appellate courts and created issues for interstate commerce and those who select motor carriers to move freight.
As a litigation associate with BFV, Olivia is a strategic problem solver who fosters relatability with clients as she counsels them through diverse business challenges and disputes.