Following a merits brief filed earlier this month by Eden Prairie, Minn.-based global third-party logistics (3PL) services provider and freight forwarder C.H. Robinson 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,” the United States federal government, through Solicitor General D. John Sauer, recently filed an amicus brief that supports C.H. Robinson’s position and calls on the United States Supreme Court to establish federal rules for how freight moves across the country, while keeping highways safe and goods moving efficiently.
In its merits brief filed earlier this month, C.H. Robinson said that 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.
Briefs were also respectively filed in support of C.H. Robinson’s position by Amazon, Wayfair, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the Transportation Intermediaries Association.
“We are gratified to be backed by a broad set of representatives of private business, including shippers, carriers, transportation companies, and industry associations, as well as members of the legal profession and state governments,” said C.H. Robinson’s chief legal officer, Dorothy Capers. “We are particularly pleased to have the brief filed by the Solicitor General, reflecting the support of the U.S. government, including the U.S. Department of Transportation, which administers the regulatory framework for this critical industry. We believe that this broad support emphasizes the importance of the question before the court and the validity of our request to confirm a consistent set of federal rules to keep goods moving safely and efficiently nationwide.”
In the Solicitor General’s filed brief, Sauer wrote that Congress enacted Section 14501(c) to prevent States from undermining federal deregulation of the prices, routes, and services of motor carriers, brokers, and freight forwarders.
“And although Congress preserved safety regulatory authority over motor vehicles, it also has authorized the Department of Transportation and its delegees, including the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, to regulate the safety practices of commercial motor carriers and drivers (e.g. Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984),” wrote Sauer. “The United States therefore has a substantial interest in interpretation of section 14501 (c) that protects and appropriately balances the Act’s deregulatory, pro-competitive purposes; the federal government’s duties and responsibilities with respect to Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety; and the States’ safety regulatory authority.”
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 recent 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 Association, 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.
