Supreme Court Issues Unanimous Rulings On Freight Brokers And Arbitration

The Supreme Court issued two unanimous decisions this week that could have significant consequences for freight brokers, trucking litigation, workplace arbitration agreements, and the limits of federal law.

The broader transportation ruling came in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, where the justices held that federal law does not automatically protect freight brokers from state negligent hiring lawsuits when they select allegedly unsafe trucking companies.

The case arose from a 2017 crash in Illinois, where a truck struck Shawn Montgomery’s tractor-trailer and left him seriously injured.

Montgomery sued C.H. Robinson Worldwide, one of the largest freight brokers in the country, claiming the company negligently hired both the driver, Yosniel Varela-Mojena, and the motor carrier, Caribe Transport.

His attorneys argued that C.H. Robinson ignored warning signs before arranging the shipment, including a previous careless driving citation involving the driver and at least three crashes involving the carrier over roughly five months.

Lower courts had sided with C.H. Robinson, ruling that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act, known as the FAAAA, preempted Montgomery’s state-law claim.

The Supreme Court disagreed.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the unanimous opinion reversing the lower court ruling. 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.”

In practical terms, the ruling means the FAAAA’s safety exception allows some state claims connected to motor vehicle safety to continue.

The decision does not hand Montgomery a final victory in the lawsuit. It simply allows his claim to move forward in court.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined by Justice Samuel Alito, wrote separately to emphasize that the ruling should not be treated as an open invitation for lawsuits against freight brokers after every crash.

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 described the statutory question as narrow and difficult.

“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 wrote.

Kavanaugh added that brokers who act responsibly should still have strong defenses available to them.

“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, warning that the decision could create new legal burdens for freight brokers.

Chris Burroughs, the group’s president and CEO, said TIA was “deeply disappointed” and argued that 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 unanimous decision came in Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties, a workplace arbitration dispute 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 beginning work.

A district court paused the case and sent it to arbitration, where Jules ultimately lost. The employer then returned to the same federal court and asked it to confirm the arbitration award.

Jules argued that the court lacked jurisdiction, relying on an earlier Supreme Court decision 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 gives employers and workers clearer guidance by confirming that when a federal court sends a case to arbitration, that same court may also handle motions concerning the arbitration award afterward.

Together, the two decisions show the Supreme Court applying federal statutes with precision rather than political theatrics. In one case, the justices allowed a state safety claim to proceed against a freight broker. In the other, they reinforced the legal structure surrounding arbitration agreements.

For businesses, workers, and transportation companies, the rulings are a reminder that even unanimous decisions can carry major consequences.