A man who lost part of his leg in a 2017 trucking crash can take one of the nation's largest freight brokers to court, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday in a 9-0 decision that could reshape liability across the American logistics industry.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the opinion in C.H. Robinson Worldwide v. Montgomery, holding that federal trucking law does not shield freight brokers from state negligence claims rooted in safety. The ruling overturned a lower court decision that had sided with the company, and it opens the door for injured plaintiffs nationwide to hold brokers accountable when they hire carriers with troubled safety records.
Shawn Montgomery was driving in Illinois in 2017 when a truck slammed into him, causing injuries so severe he lost part of his leg. The truck had been arranged by C.H. Robinson, a freight brokerage giant that connects shippers with trucking carriers. Montgomery did not just sue the driver and the carrier. He went after the broker, too, alleging that C.H. Robinson ignored what he called "serious red flags" about the driver and the carrier's safety record before putting them on the road, as the Washington Times reported.
C.H. Robinson fought the lawsuit on preemption grounds. The company argued that a federal statute governing the trucking industry bars state-law claims against brokers, effectively placing their business decisions beyond the reach of state negligence suits. A federal appeals court agreed, tossing Montgomery's claims.
The Supreme Court took the case to resolve a split among the circuits on whether brokers can invoke federal preemption to block safety-related state tort claims.
Barrett's opinion left no room for ambiguity. The Court found that Montgomery's negligence claims fall within a statutory exception that preserves state authority over safety regulations. That exception, the justices held, protects exactly the kind of claim Montgomery brought: one grounded in the allegation that a broker was careless about who it put behind the wheel.
CBS News reported that the decision reversed the lower court ruling squarely, sending the case back so Montgomery can pursue his claims on the merits. The unanimous result means no justice found the broker's preemption argument persuasive enough to warrant even a partial dissent.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, concurring, underscored what was at stake beyond the legal technicalities. AP News reported his pointed observation:
"Truck safety is a matter of life and death."
That line captures the core tension the Court resolved. The freight brokerage industry wanted a broad federal shield. The Court said no, at least where safety is concerned.
Barrett's role as the opinion's author is consistent with her growing influence on the Court's docket. She has previously pushed back on the notion that the Court splits along partisan lines, and this unanimous result reinforces that point.
The company's defense rested on a provision of the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act, known as the FAAAA, which Congress extended to cover trucking brokers. That provision preempts state laws "related to" a broker's prices, routes, or services. C.H. Robinson read "services" broadly, arguing that its brokerage decisions, including carrier selection, qualified as services insulated from state interference.
Barrett and the full Court rejected that reading. The safety exception in the statute, they held, carves out room for state-law claims that address motor carrier safety. Montgomery's allegation that the broker negligently hired a dangerous carrier fits squarely within that carve-out.
The distinction matters because it draws a line between economic regulation and safety accountability. States cannot dictate broker pricing or route decisions. But when a broker's hiring choices put a dangerous driver on a public highway, injured parties can seek relief under state tort law.
The freight brokerage sector had rallied behind C.H. Robinson, warning that a ruling for Montgomery would expose brokers to a flood of litigation. Industry groups filed amicus briefs arguing that brokers are middlemen, not motor carriers, and should not bear liability for crashes they did not directly cause.
The Court was unmoved. The 9-0 margin signals that every justice, across ideological lines, saw the safety exception as clear enough to override the industry's preemption argument. That unanimity is worth noting at a time when Chief Justice Roberts has told Americans the Court is "not part of the political process" and the justices have worked to demonstrate institutional cohesion on cases that cut across partisan expectations.
For brokers, the practical consequence is straightforward: vetting carriers just became a legal obligation with teeth. A broker that ignores a carrier's poor safety history, driver violations, or inspection failures now faces potential negligence liability in state court. The federal shield they relied on for years has a hole in it, and the Supreme Court just told the country exactly where that hole is.
The ruling's ripple effects could reach well beyond C.H. Robinson. The American trucking industry moves roughly 70 percent of the nation's freight by weight, and brokers arrange a large share of those loads. If brokers must now account for carrier safety records to avoid tort exposure, the incentive structure shifts. Cheap carriers with bad records become legal liabilities, not just operational risks.
The Supreme Court did not rule on whether Montgomery will ultimately win his negligence case. It ruled only that he can bring it. The case now returns to the lower courts, where Montgomery must prove that C.H. Robinson acted negligently in selecting the carrier and that the negligence caused his injuries.
That is no small task. Montgomery will need to show what C.H. Robinson knew or should have known about the carrier's safety record before the 2017 crash. He will need to demonstrate that a reasonable broker in the same position would have made a different choice. And he will need to connect those failures directly to the collision that cost him part of his leg.
But the fact that he gets to make that case at all is the victory. For years, the lower court ruling kept the courthouse door shut. The Supreme Court just opened it.
The decision also lands during a period of intense focus on the Court's direction and composition. With speculation about Justice Alito's retirement rising and ongoing debates about the Court's conservative bloc, a clean 9-0 ruling authored by Barrett sends a signal: on certain questions, the law is clear enough to unite every member of the bench.
Legal observers had watched this case closely because the circuit split had created a patchwork of rules. In some parts of the country, brokers enjoyed near-total immunity from state tort claims. In others, courts had already allowed safety-based suits to proceed. The Supreme Court's ruling eliminates that inconsistency.
The safety exception now has a definitive, nationwide interpretation. State negligence claims grounded in motor carrier safety are not preempted by the FAAAA. Brokers cannot hide behind federal law when their hiring decisions put dangerous trucks on the road.
For plaintiffs' attorneys, the ruling is a green light. For defense lawyers representing logistics companies, it is a wake-up call to audit carrier-selection protocols and document due diligence. The cost of ignoring a red flag just went up.
The case also fits a broader pattern at the Court, where Justice Gorsuch has pushed back on critics who claim the institution is broken. A unanimous ruling that protects both federalism and public safety is a strong counterargument to anyone who says the justices cannot find common ground.
Authorities have not publicly confirmed whether federal regulators plan any rulemaking in response to the decision. The ruling does not require new regulations; it simply preserves the power of existing state tort law. But the decision could prompt the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to revisit broker oversight standards, particularly around carrier vetting.
Investigators will also need to determine, in this case and future ones, what information brokers had access to when they selected carriers. Safety data, inspection records, and driver violation histories are all maintained in federal databases. Whether brokers checked those databases, and what they did with the results, will become central questions in litigation going forward.
When a freight broker can pocket the margin on a load without worrying about who actually drives it, the incentives point in the wrong direction. The Supreme Court just corrected the compass.
