American Truckers United Takes Broker Liability Fight to the U.S. Supreme Court

Why Montgomery v. Caribe Transport Could Redefine Accountability, Safety, and Market Fairness in Freight Transportation

By SafetyLane Editorial Staff

American Truckers United (ATU) has filed its first-ever amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court, entering a landmark legal battle that could reshape how responsibility is assigned in the freight brokerage system. The case, Shawn Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, places broker liability squarely before the nation’s highest court and raises fundamental questions about safety, accountability, and the balance between federal preemption and state tort law.

ATU’s filing aligns with separate amicus briefs submitted by 30 bipartisan Attorneys General, signaling broad national concern that the outcome of this case will have consequences far beyond a single crash or jurisdiction.

The Core Legal Question Before the Court

At the center of the dispute is whether freight brokers can be shielded from state tort liability when their alleged negligence in selecting a motor carrier contributes to a serious or fatal crash.

Specifically, the Supreme Court is being asked to interpret 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)—a provision of the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA)—and determine whether its preemption clause bars state law negligence claims against brokers, or whether those claims are preserved under the statute’s safety exception, which protects state authority “with respect to motor vehicles.”

In practical terms, the Court must decide whether Congress intended to immunize brokers from accountability when unsafe carrier selection decisions lead to real-world harm.

Case Background: From a Crash to a Constitutional Question

The underlying lawsuit arose from a tractor-trailer crash that resulted in serious injury. The plaintiff, Shawn Montgomery, brought claims not only against the driver and motor carrier, but also against the broker involved in arranging the load, alleging negligent selection of an unsafe carrier.

Lower courts dismissed the broker claim, finding it preempted under federal law. That ruling echoed similar decisions in other circuits and contributed to a growing split in how courts interpret broker liability under the FAAAA.

Recognizing the national importance of the issue, the Supreme Court granted review—setting the stage for a decision that could redefine the legal landscape for brokers, carriers, insurers, and crash victims alike.

ATU’s Position: Accountability Is a Safety Mechanism

American Truckers United’s brief does not frame the issue as anti-broker or anti-commerce. Instead, it presents a market-integrity argument grounded in safety and fairness.

ATU warns that granting brokers immunity from negligence claims would create a structural incentive to prioritize price over safety, encouraging a race to the bottom in carrier selection. If brokers face no civil consequences for ignoring safety red flags, responsible motor carriers are placed at a competitive disadvantage, while unsafe operators gain market access.

The brief echoes contemporary tort scholarship, arguing that when government removes traditional tort remedies, it effectively chooses economic winners and losers—a decision that should not be inferred without clear congressional intent.

As ATU emphasizes, Congress enacted the FAAAA to remove economic barriers, not to dismantle long-standing state authority over roadway safety or to absolve negligent actors from accountability when lives are lost.

Why State Attorneys General Are Weighing In

The multistate amicus brief filed by 30 Attorneys General reinforces ATU’s concerns from a federalism and public safety perspective.

States argue that motor vehicle safety has historically been a core state function, enforced not only through regulation but through tort law. Negligence claims, they note, are among the most basic tools states use to deter unsafe conduct and protect the public.

According to the states, nothing in the FAAAA indicates that Congress intended to preempt these traditional remedies—particularly when the statute expressly preserves state authority related to motor vehicles.

What’s at Stake for the Transportation Industry

For carriers, brokers, and safety professionals, the implications of this case are profound.

If the Court affirms broad broker immunity:

• Negligent-selection claims may be eliminated in many jurisdictions

• Market pressure may increasingly reward low-cost, high-risk operators

• Safety accountability could shift away from civil courts and toward private contracts

If the Court limits preemption:

• Brokers may face heightened scrutiny of carrier vetting practices

• Documentation of safety due diligence will become a critical risk-management tool

• Compliance-focused carriers may gain a competitive advantage

Either outcome will influence insurance pricing, contract structures, and safety protocols across the industry.

SafetyLane Perspective: Why This Case Matters

SafetyLane is a publication devoted to transportation regulation, compliance, and safety. The reason this case demands attention is simple:

When accountability mechanisms change, behavior changes.

Whether through regulation, enforcement, or civil liability, safety systems depend on clear lines of responsibility. The Supreme Court’s decision in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport will help determine whether broker selection practices remain subject to meaningful external review—or whether that responsibility is effectively removed from the public accountability framework.

Looking Ahead

The Court’s ruling is expected to provide long-awaited clarity on broker liability under federal law. Until then, industry participants should:

• Review and document carrier-selection criteria

• Strengthen internal safety and vetting protocols

• Monitor contractual risk allocation closely

This case is not just about legal theory. It is about how safety is valued, enforced, and sustained in a system that moves nearly every product Americans rely on.

SafetyLane will continue to follow this case closely and provide updates as the Supreme Court deliberates a decision that could reshape the future of freight transportation.