October Term 2025 · Docket 24-1238
Does federal law shield freight brokers from state lawsuits?
A trucking crash case asks whether federal transportation law blocks negligence claims against companies that select carriers.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official Court opinion was verified.
- — An official Court opinion was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
Argument session of March 4, 2026
Montgomery asked the Court to apply the statute's text and reject broker immunity. He argued the opposing sides' position would immunize brokers and add a direct-link requirement the statute lacks. He said transportation is broadly defined, covering many non-vehicle items and services, which undercuts any superfluity concern. He acknowledged the interstate-intrastate anomaly, saying Congress deliberately treated brokers differently across the two subsections. He confirmed that under his safety-exception theory, the interstate scenario would allow a tort suit. He also said no direct link is required, but attenuated, peripheral, and remote matters are not covered.
the opposing sides asked the Court to hold the claims preempted. They argued negligent-selection claims target the broker's core service and are preempted, and the safety saving clause does not apply because brokers lack sufficient connection to motor vehicles. They relied on Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor and Dan's City. They argued subsection (b) broadly preempts intrastate broker-service claims without a savings clause and called it absurd to save interstate but not intrastate state authority. They said brokers have no duty to check safety records and may rely on federal licensing. They emphasized the clause also covers brokers with respect to transportation of property.
The United States, supporting the opposing sides, argued the structure limits the safety exception to motor vehicles, excluding broker arranging services. It called any reading giving states more authority over interstate broker services than intrastate ones anomalous and unprecedented. It described the federal safety system, including roadside inspections, revocation, and federal private actions. It said brokers select from registered carriers and carriers bear safety liability. It agreed with the opposing sides on interpreting the safety exception.
The justices tested several assumptions. Justice Thomas probed who regulated safety before deregulation and whether attenuated brokers would fail on proximate cause. Justice Kavanaugh tested the interstate-intrastate contrast, the financial-security asymmetry, and why Congress would exclude brokers from the safety exception. Justice Kagan probed the anomaly's origin and how tort suits could fall outside the motor-vehicle phrase. Justice Jackson tested broker duties, prior state liability, and the deregulation-versus-safety structure. Justice Barrett tested whether deciding via the safety exception would prejudice future preemption questions. Justice Sotomayor tested state safety authority and the patchwork rationale. No reargument occurred in this session, so nothing was revisited on that basis.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 27-37 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 27-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 39-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 103, lines 9-19 — Transcript, file page 103, lines 9-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 9-27 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 9-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 11-25 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 11-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 21-31 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 21-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 7-31 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 7-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 39, lines 15-21 — Transcript, file page 39, lines 15-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 46, lines 45-7 — Transcript, file page 46, lines 45-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 51-47 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 51-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 49-55 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 49-55
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 43-45 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 43-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 17-27 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 17-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 43-47 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 43-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 49-55 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 49-55
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 33-41 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 33-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 62, lines 17-45 — Transcript, file page 62, lines 17-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 63, lines 47-51 — Transcript, file page 63, lines 47-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 66, lines 25-33 — Transcript, file page 66, lines 25-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 31-7 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 31-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 49-53 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 49-53
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 81, lines 23-43 — Transcript, file page 81, lines 23-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 82, lines 51-55 — Transcript, file page 82, lines 51-55
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 83, lines 13-27 — Transcript, file page 83, lines 13-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 84, lines 29-17 — Transcript, file page 84, lines 29-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 91, lines 19-25 — Transcript, file page 91, lines 19-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 95, lines 23-29 — Transcript, file page 95, lines 23-29
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
Shawn Montgomery sued Caribe Transport II and related companies after a trucking accident. The case is numbered 24-1238. The fight is over whether federal law blocks his claims against the broker side of the trucking industry.
The legal fight centers on a federal transportation law. It lets states regulate carriers, but brokers argue a different part of the law wipes out state claims against them. The Court heard argument on March 4, 2026.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 1, lines 1-9 — Transcript, file page 1, lines 1-9
How the case got here
The case reached the Supreme Court after lower proceedings. Chief Justice Roberts opened the argument session and recognized Paul Clement arguing for Montgomery. Theodore Boutrous argued for the opposing sides, and Sopan Joshi argued for the United States supporting them.
The argument happened at 10:12 a. m. before the full bench. The transcript is the source for everything described here.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 1, lines 1-9 — Transcript, file page 1, lines 1-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 11-21
What each side wants
Montgomery asks the Court to apply the statute's text and reject broker immunity. He wants his lawsuit to go forward. the opposing sides ask the Court to hold the claims preempted, meaning federal law overrides the state claims entirely.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 51-47 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 51-47
What each side says
Montgomery argues the opposing sides' position would immunize brokers. He says they invented a direct-link requirement the statute never contains. He also says transportation is broadly defined, covering many non-vehicle items and services.
the opposing sides argue negligent-selection claims target the broker's core service and are preempted. They say the safety saving clause does not apply because brokers lack a sufficient connection to motor vehicles. They cite Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor and Dan's City, which called the phrase with respect to motor vehicles massively limiting.
The United States, supporting the opposing sides, argues the structure limits the safety exception to motor vehicles. It says broker arranging services are excluded. It also calls any reading that gives states more power over interstate brokers than intrastate ones anomalous and unprecedented.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 39, lines 15-21 — Transcript, file page 39, lines 15-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 51-47 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 51-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 81, lines 23-43 — Transcript, file page 81, lines 23-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 84, lines 29-17 — Transcript, file page 84, lines 29-17
What the justices asked
Justice Thomas asked who handled safety regulation before deregulation. Montgomery answered that the federal Transportation Department and the states shared that job, while the old ICC agency handled rates, prices, and routes, not safety.
Justice Kavanaugh posed a hypothetical contrasting an intrastate trip from Los Angeles to San Francisco with an interstate trip to Reno under Montgomery's theory. He also asked why Congress required carriers but not brokers to carry financial security for accident liability. Montgomery acknowledged the interstate-intrastate anomaly and said Congress deliberately treated brokers differently in the two subsections.
Justice Kagan asked Montgomery for a theory explaining where that anomaly comes from. She also said tort suits are part of state safety authority and questioned how such suits could not be with respect to motor vehicles.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 27-37 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 27-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 9-27 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 9-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 11-25 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 11-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 20, lines 27-37 — Transcript, file page 20, lines 27-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 46, lines 45-7 — Transcript, file page 46, lines 45-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 49-55 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 49-55
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 39-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 17-27 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 17-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 29-45 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 29-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 43-47 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 43-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 49-55 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 49-55
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 33-41 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 33-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 62, lines 17-45 — Transcript, file page 62, lines 17-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 63, lines 47-51 — Transcript, file page 63, lines 47-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 66, lines 25-33 — Transcript, file page 66, lines 25-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 31-7 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 31-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 49-53 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 49-53
Why it matters
The United States described the federal safety system in detail. The FMCSA agency is understaffed and overworked. Among roughly 700,000 carriers, at least one roadside inspection has been performed for two-thirds over the last five years. Violating carriers face revocation, and federal private actions exist against carriers and brokers.
The government said brokers select from registered carriers, and carriers bear safety liability under the federal system. Carriers' vicarious liability covers driver negligence, while brokers neither use or control vehicles nor access confidential driver records. It also noted brokers' role has grown from several hundred to about 25,000 federally registered brokers since deregulation.
the opposing sides said no tort suits against shippers exist under the safety exception, only carriers. They argued Section 31141 allows post-decision federal preemption, so state safety rules must stay compatible with federal law. They acknowledged that if they lose, brokers would have to demand hiring information from carriers. They also said proximate cause is part of the claim here.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 103, lines 9-19 — Transcript, file page 103, lines 9-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 66, lines 35-13 — Transcript, file page 66, lines 35-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 68, lines 31-41 — Transcript, file page 68, lines 31-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 45-47 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 45-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 71, lines 45-49 — Transcript, file page 71, lines 45-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 83, lines 13-27 — Transcript, file page 83, lines 13-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 91, lines 19-25 — Transcript, file page 91, lines 19-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 95, lines 23-29 — Transcript, file page 95, lines 23-29
What the Court decided
A state-law claim that a company carelessly hired an unsafe trucking firm concerns motor vehicles, so the federal trucking law's safety exception keeps such claims from being preempted.
The Supreme Court reversed the Seventh Circuit's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Opinion — file page 2, lines 1-1 — Opinion, file page 2, lines 1-1
- Official Supreme Court Opinion — file page 3, lines 1-1 — Opinion, file page 3, lines 1-1
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Verified official opinions and orders
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 1, lines 1-9 — Transcript, file page 1, lines 1-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 1, lines 1-9 — Transcript, file page 1, lines 1-9
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 3 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Removed an unsupported statement that the Court had not ruled; the available source set did not establish that absence.
- Revision 4 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Corrected unsupported no-ruling language and clarified that the article's disposition summary is incomplete.
- Revision 5 · Post Opinion ·
Correction: Added the holding and disposition from the verified official Court opinion.
- Revision 6 · Post Opinion ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.