The Supreme Court handed down two unanimous decisions that could reshape legal fights involving freight brokers, trucking crashes, and workplace arbitration agreements.
The broader ruling for the transportation industry came in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, where the court held that federal law does not automatically shield freight brokers from state negligent hiring lawsuits when they select unsafe trucking companies.
The case stems from a 2017 crash in Illinois in which a truck hit Shawn Montgomery’s tractor-trailer, badly injuring him.
Montgomery sued C.H. Robinson Worldwide, one of the nation’s largest freight brokers, alleging the company negligently hired both the driver, Yosniel Varela-Mojena, and the motor carrier, Caribe Transport.
His attorneys argued the broker ignored serious warning signs, including a prior careless driving citation involving the driver and at least three crashes involving the carrier over roughly five months.
Lower courts sided with C.H. Robinson, ruling that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act, known as the FAAAA, blocked Montgomery’s state-law claim.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the unanimous opinion that reversed that decision.
The court’s syllabus stated that “even if the FAAAA otherwise preempts Montgomery’s negligent hiring claim against C.H. Robinson, the safety exception saves it.”
That means the law’s safety exception allows certain state claims tied to motor vehicle safety to move forward.
The ruling does not mean Montgomery automatically wins his lawsuit, but it does allow his claim to proceed.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined by Justice Samuel Alito, wrote separately to clarify the limits of the decision.
Kavanaugh warned the ruling “should not be read to mean that brokers will routinely be subject to state tort liability in the wake of truck accidents.”
He also called the legal question close, writing that “the conflicting contextual considerations make this a close case as we determine how to construe and where to draw the line on the statutory phrase ‘with respect to motor vehicles.’”
Kavanaugh added that responsible brokers should still be able to defend themselves.
“As even plaintiff’s counsel stressed, brokers should be able to successfully defend against state tort suits if the brokers have acted reasonably and arranged [transportation] with reputable trucking companies,” he wrote.
The Transportation Intermediaries Association criticized the ruling.
Chris Burroughs, the group’s president and CEO, said TIA was “deeply disappointed” and warned the decision places an “impossible task on brokers.”
“We are working with our members to assess potential next steps to mitigate the consequences of the Supreme Court’s decision,” Burroughs said.
“In the meantime, our members will continue to vigorously defend against negligent selection claims as plaintiffs still must meet applicable legal standards, such as proving causation and proving that individual brokers did not meet a supposed standard of care in each case,” he added.
The second ruling came in Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties, an arbitration case involving a former employee of the Chateau Marmont Hotel in Los Angeles.
Adrian Jules sued in federal court, alleging discrimination after signing an arbitration agreement before starting work.
A district court paused the case and sent it to arbitration, where Jules lost.
The employer then asked the same federal court to confirm the arbitration award.
Jules argued the court lacked jurisdiction, citing an earlier Supreme Court ruling involving standalone motions to confirm or vacate arbitration awards, Newsweek reported.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the unanimous opinion rejecting that argument.
“A federal court with jurisdiction to stay claims pending arbitration under §3 of the FAA has the same jurisdiction to resolve motions to confirm or vacate a resulting arbitral award. The judgment of the Court of Appeals, accordingly, is affirmed,” Sotomayor wrote.
The ruling provides clarity for employers and workers by confirming that a federal court that sends a case to arbitration may also handle the result afterward.
Together, the rulings show the court applying federal statutes narrowly and unanimously, even in cases with major consequences for business, transportation, and workplace litigation.
This article may contain commentary which reflects the author's opinion.
