Cross Auto Transport LLC

The Supreme Court Just Changed the Trucking Industry Forever — And Most People Have No Idea

On May 14, 2026, a unanimous 9-0 ruling quietly dismantled the legal shield that freight brokers have hidden behind for decades. Here's what happened, why it matters, and what comes next.

Posted May 21, 2026  ·  ~15 min read  ·  Case: Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, 608 U.S. ___ (2026)

It was a cold December morning in 2017 when Shawn Montgomery's life changed forever on a stretch of Illinois Interstate 70. His vehicle had broken down. He had pulled over — done everything right. Then a Mack truck driven by Yosniel Varela-Mojena drifted off the road and slammed into the back of his stopped car. The impact was catastrophic. Montgomery lost his leg. He suffered permanent disfigurement. His life was cleaved into a before and an after by a collision that, in a just world, never should have happened.

What followed was a years-long legal battle that eventually landed at the highest court in the United States — and on May 14, 2026, the Supreme Court handed down a unanimous 9-0 decision that will send shockwaves through the $1+ trillion American freight industry for years to come.

The case is Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, and if you've never heard of it, that's understandable. It doesn't have the cultural lightning-rod quality of a Dobbs or a Citizens United. But for anyone who cares about corporate accountability, road safety, and the hidden machinery that moves goods across this country every single day, this ruling is enormous.

First: Who Actually Are Freight Brokers, and Why Does This Matter?

Before we can understand the ruling, we need to understand the industry it just upended. Because when most people think about a "trucking accident," they picture a truck driver and maybe their employer. The freight broker — the powerful intermediary sitting between the shipper and the carrier — is almost entirely invisible to the public. That invisibility has been, until now, extremely profitable for them.

Here's how the supply chain works in practice. A company — let's say a garden supply manufacturer — needs to ship a load of plastic pots from a warehouse in Indiana to a distribution center in Texas. They don't own a fleet of trucks. So they contact a freight broker. The broker's job is to find a motor carrier (a trucking company) willing to haul that load for an agreed price, and to coordinate the logistics of the shipment. The broker takes a cut. The carrier gets the contract. The goods move.

Sounds reasonable. Except here's the thing: freight brokers wield enormous power over which carriers get selected, but under the legal regime that existed before May 14, 2026, they bore almost none of the liability when those carriers caused harm.

~$1T+

Estimated annual value of the U.S. freight brokerage market

9–0

Unanimous Supreme Court vote in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II

2017

Year of the underlying highway accident in Illinois

~9 yrs

From accident to Supreme Court ruling

C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. — the defendant in this case and the nation's largest freight broker — is not a household name, but it is a corporate colossus. The company arranges millions of shipments annually and reported revenues in the billions. Yet for years, when one of the carriers it dispatched caused a catastrophic crash, Robinson and brokers like it had a powerful legal weapon: federal preemption under the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act, or FAAAA.

The Law at the Center of Everything: The FAAAA

What is it and why does it matter?

The Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 — yes, it's a law about airlines that also governs trucking, because Congress, in its infinite organizational wisdom, stuck trucking deregulation into an aviation bill — contains a key provision that preempts, meaning overrides, state laws that relate to "a price, route, or service" of motor carriers, brokers, and freight forwarders.

The idea behind this provision was economic deregulation. Congress wanted a national, unified market for freight services and didn't want a patchwork of 50 different state regulations governing how trucking companies and brokers price and route shipments. That's the FAAAA's core purpose: free the market from state regulatory interference.

"The FAAAA was an economic deregulation statute, not a safety deregulation statute."

But Congress also included a crucial carve-out. Section 14501(c)(2)(A) of the FAAAA explicitly preserves a state's "safety regulatory authority… with respect to motor vehicles." The whole fight in this case — and in dozens of lower court cases before it — was about whether that safety exception covers negligent-hiring lawsuits against freight brokers.

Freight brokers argued: our hiring decisions are part of our "service," so any state lawsuit targeting those decisions is preempted by federal law. Full stop. Case closed. Goodbye.

Injured plaintiffs argued: no — when a broker negligently puts a dangerous carrier on the road, that's a safety matter involving motor vehicles, and states have the explicit authority to hold them accountable for it.

For years, courts split on this question. The Seventh Circuit — the federal appellate court covering Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin — sided with the brokers. It held that the FAAAA preempted Montgomery's claims and threw the case out. Montgomery appealed. The Supreme Court agreed to hear it. And then, last week, the Court answered the question once and for all.

The Accident, the Lawsuit, and the Long Road to Washington

Let's go back to December 7, 2017, because the human reality of this case matters as much as the legal abstraction.

Yosniel Varela-Mojena was operating a tractor-trailer for Caribe Transport II, an Indiana-based interstate motor carrier. He was hauling that load of plastic pots — the shipment arranged by C.H. Robinson under a carrier agreement with Caribe II. Something went wrong. The truck veered. It rear-ended Shawn Montgomery's stopped vehicle on I-70.

Montgomery survived, but at devastating cost: the amputation of his leg and permanent disfigurement. He sued Caribe Transport II, the driver, and C.H. Robinson.

His claim against Robinson was, at its core, a negligent-hiring claim. The theory: Robinson knew or should have known that Caribe Transport II was an unsafe carrier. According to court documents, Caribe had a "conditional" safety rating from federal regulators — not the clean "satisfactory" rating that responsible brokers look for — and a documented history of driver-qualification deficiencies. Despite this, Robinson dispatched Caribe to haul the load. That decision, Montgomery argued, was negligent, and Robinson should be held liable for the harm that flowed from it.

The federal district court disagreed. It held that the FAAAA preempted Montgomery's negligent-hiring claim and dismissed it. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court then took up the case — stepping in specifically to resolve the circuit split that had left the law in chaos for years.

What the Court Actually Decided — And How It Got There

Justice Barrett writes for a unanimous court

Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the majority opinion, and it is, in the language of appellate law, a fairly clean piece of statutory interpretation. The Court's central holding: a negligent-hiring claim against a freight broker is not preempted by the FAAAA because such claims fall within the statute's safety exception preserving state authority "with respect to motor vehicles."

The reasoning goes like this. Yes, the FAAAA broadly preempts state laws "related to" broker services. But the safety exception carves back that preemption for exercises of state safety regulatory authority concerning motor vehicles. When a plaintiff brings a negligent-hiring claim alleging that a broker's carrier selection put an unsafe truck on the road and that truck then injured someone, that is — almost definitionally — a claim about safety with respect to motor vehicles. The motor vehicle is the entire point. The harm is motor-vehicle harm. The negligence concerns the selection of who operates motor vehicles.

Barrett addressed the brokers' strongest structural argument head-on. The brokers pointed out an asymmetry in the statute: a separate FAAAA subsection that covers intrastate brokerage fully preempts state regulation without any safety exception. If Congress wanted states to have safety authority over interstate brokerage, why didn't it include the same safety exception there?

Barrett's response was candid and sharp: "It is not obvious why Congress included a safety exception" in one place and not the other. But — and here's the key move — "it would be even odder to say that the alleged tort — the negligent hiring of an unsafe motor carrier whose truck caused injury — is not an exercise of 'the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles.'" The text controls. As Barrett put it: "Better to live with the mystery than to rewrite the statute."

⚖️ The Core Legal Holding

A negligent-hiring claim against a freight broker is NOT preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA), 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c).

The FAAAA's safety exception — Section 14501(c)(2)(A) — preserves a state's "safety regulatory authority with respect to motor vehicles," and that language covers claims about how brokers select the carriers whose trucks operate on public roads.

The Seventh Circuit's ruling against Montgomery is reversed. His case goes back to the lower courts to proceed on the merits.

Kavanaugh concurs — but with a warning

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined by Justice Samuel Alito, wrote separately. His concurrence is notable for two things: intellectual honesty about the difficulty of the question, and an important limiting principle that the industry should pay attention to.

On the difficulty: Kavanaugh was candid that the structural arguments made by C.H. Robinson — particularly the intrastate/interstate asymmetry — were "powerful" and made this "a closer case" than the majority opinion may suggest. He wasn't writing to undercut the majority; he was being honest that this was genuinely hard law. That kind of candor from a Supreme Court justice is worth noting.

On the limiting principle: Kavanaugh was explicit that this ruling does not make brokers automatically liable for every accident involving a carrier they hired. Brokers that have acted reasonably in their carrier selection — that have done their due diligence, checked safety ratings, reviewed compliance records — retain their defenses. The ruling opens the courthouse door to negligent-hiring claims. It does not guarantee that plaintiffs will win them. The question of whether any particular broker was actually negligent remains a factual question for juries to decide.

That distinction matters. This is not a strict liability ruling. Brokers don't become insurers. They become, in the eyes of the law, entities with a duty of ordinary care — which is exactly what every other business that hires third parties to do dangerous work has always faced.

A Timeline of the Case

December 7, 2017

Shawn Montgomery's vehicle is struck by a Caribe Transport II tractor-trailer on Illinois Interstate 70. He suffers the amputation of his leg and permanent disfigurement.

2018–2020

Montgomery files suit against Caribe Transport II, driver Yosniel Varela-Mojena, and freight broker C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. The federal district court dismisses the negligent-hiring claim against Robinson, holding it is preempted by the FAAAA.

2021–2023

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirms the dismissal, siding with brokers on the preemption question. The circuit split deepens as other courts rule differently on the same legal issue.

2024–2025

The Supreme Court of the United States grants certiorari — agrees to hear the case — to resolve the national circuit split on broker liability under the FAAAA.

May 14, 2026

The Supreme Court issues a 9-0 unanimous decision in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, 608 U.S. ___ (2026). Justice Barrett writes for the Court. Justice Kavanaugh concurs, joined by Justice Alito. The Seventh Circuit is reversed. Freight brokers lose their federal preemption shield.

What This Actually Means — For the Industry, for Victims, and for the Roads

For freight brokers

The legal trade press has not been subtle. Multiple legal analysts have called the FAAAA preemption defense for freight brokers "over." That's not hyperbole — it's an accurate description of what this ruling does. The shield that Robinson and thousands of other brokers used to get negligent-hiring cases thrown out of court before they ever reached a jury no longer exists. Gone. Done.

What replaces it is not a regime of automatic liability. But it is a regime of real, substantial legal exposure. Freight brokers can now face personal injury lawsuits in all fifty states. And unlike the cases against motor carriers — where the driver is an employee and vicarious liability is relatively straightforward — negligent-hiring cases require plaintiffs to show that the broker failed to exercise ordinary care in selecting its carrier. That means discovery. That means evidence about the broker's vetting processes, the carrier's safety record, and what the broker knew or should have known. That means jury trials. And juries, as the industry knows, can return seven- and eight-figure verdicts.

Few freight brokers currently carry excess liability coverage designed to handle catastrophic negligent-hiring verdicts. The insurance industry hasn't yet priced this exposure into brokerage premiums — but it will. Analysts expect significant premium increases across the industry, with the steepest increases falling on firms that can't demonstrate rigorous, documented, systematic carrier vetting practices.

For carrier vetting — the practical fallout

What does "ordinary care" actually look like in this context? Legal experts have been quick to outline what brokers should be checking before they dispatch any carrier:

Safety ratings. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) assigns safety ratings to interstate carriers: Satisfactory, Conditional, or Unsatisfactory. Caribe Transport II, the carrier that struck Montgomery, reportedly had a "Conditional" rating. A broker that dispatches a carrier with a Conditional or Unsatisfactory rating is, in the post-Montgomery world, taking on enormous legal risk. Satisfactory-rated carriers only, or carriers without a rating (which are technically unrated, not failed) with clean supplemental records, should be the baseline.

SAFER database checks. The FMCSA's Safety and Fitness Electronic Records (SAFER) system is publicly available and provides a carrier's registration, insurance status, inspection history, and out-of-service rates. There is no excuse — and now no legal shelter — for a broker that fails to check it.

CSA scores. The Compliance, Safety, Accountability program tracks carriers across seven Behavior Analysis and Safety Improvement Categories (BASICs): Unsafe Driving, Hours-of-Service Compliance, Driver Fitness, Controlled Substances/Alcohol, Vehicle Maintenance, Hazardous Materials Compliance, and Crash Indicator. A carrier with bad CSA scores is a carrier that should raise red flags.

Insurance verification. Is the carrier's insurance current? Is it sufficient? A broker that sends a shipment with an under-insured or uninsured carrier is, to put it gently, extremely exposed.

Documentation and audit trails. Arguably the biggest practical shift this ruling demands is not just doing these checks, but documenting that you did them. In litigation, the question will be: what did you know, when did you know it, and what did you do about it? Brokers that can pull up a clean, timestamped audit trail of their carrier vetting process are in a fundamentally different legal position than those operating on gut instinct and handshake relationships.

"Brokers that can demonstrate a systematic, documented, data-driven selection process based on publicly available data will face a less severe increase in premiums than those brokerage firms that cannot demonstrate a certain level of continuous, rigorous and systematic investigation."

For road safety — the bigger picture

Here is the part of this story that doesn't get enough attention in the legal trade press: people die on American roads because unsafe trucks are on them. According to federal data, large truck crashes kill thousands of Americans every year. Many of those crashes involve carriers with documented safety deficiencies — carriers that, under the old regime, brokers could dispatch without meaningful legal consequence.

The Supreme Court's ruling doesn't fix that overnight. But it creates a powerful financial incentive — one that regulation alone has struggled to create — for brokers to take safety seriously when selecting carriers. If you can be sued for millions of dollars because you hired a carrier with a conditional safety rating and that carrier hurt someone, you have a very strong reason to not hire carriers with conditional safety ratings.

That's how tort law is supposed to work. Liability creates incentives. Incentives change behavior. Behavior saves lives. The theory is elegant. Whether it works in practice depends on how aggressively plaintiffs pursue these claims and how courts develop the "ordinary care" standard going forward — but the foundation has now been laid.

The Regulatory Gap Argument — and Why It's Compelling

One of the most important threads in Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence is his acknowledgment of what he called a "significant regulatory gap." Federal law requires brokers to use carriers that are federally registered with the FMCSA. That's it. That's the only meaningful safety standard the federal government imposes on broker hiring decisions.

There's no federal requirement that brokers check safety ratings before dispatching. No federal rule requiring CSA score review. No federal standard for what "due diligence" looks like in carrier selection. The FMCSA regulates carriers directly — their hours of service, their vehicles, their driver qualifications. But brokers, the powerful intermediaries who decide which carriers get the work, have operated in a remarkable regulatory vacuum with respect to their hiring practices.

Into that vacuum, Congress put nothing. And under the pre-Montgomery regime, that vacuum was also sealed off from state tort law by the FAAAA preemption argument. The result was a situation that Kavanaugh described as allowing "state tort suits against negligent trucking companies while categorically immunizing brokers that negligently select unsafe carriers." That, he wrote, is difficult to square with any coherent reading of a statute that wasn't designed to be a safety deregulation law.

The ruling doesn't fill the federal regulatory gap directly — that would require congressional action or new FMCSA rulemaking. But it fills it indirectly, through the threat of civil liability. In American law, this is a time-honored mechanism. When regulators can't or don't act, tort law steps in as a backstop. That's what happened here.

What Happens Next — For Montgomery, for Robinson, and for the Industry

For Shawn Montgomery personally, the ruling means his negligent-hiring claim against C.H. Robinson gets a second life. The case is remanded — sent back down to the lower courts — to proceed on the merits. That means Robinson will now have to defend itself on the actual substance of whether it was negligent in selecting Caribe Transport II, given what it knew or should have known about that carrier's safety record.

That merits fight will be hard-fought and expensive. Robinson will argue that it exercised reasonable care. Montgomery's lawyers will argue that Caribe's conditional safety rating and history of driver-qualification deficiencies were red flags that any reasonably careful broker would have acted on. A jury will eventually decide — unless the case settles first, which, given the ruling's implications for Robinson's litigation exposure, seems quite possible.

For C.H. Robinson and the broader freight brokerage industry, the implications are immediate and significant. Every active negligent-hiring case that was dismissed on FAAAA preemption grounds is now potentially revivable, depending on statutes of limitations and procedural posture. Every future accident involving a carrier dispatched by a broker becomes a potential lawsuit. The company's legal team, and the legal teams of every major broker in the country, is working overtime right now.

The insurance market, as noted, will adjust. It will take time — the actuaries need to build models, the underwriters need to price the risk — but the direction of travel is clear. Premiums go up. Brokers that demonstrate rigorous vetting practices get better rates. Brokers that operate sloppily pay more. The market, in theory, prices in the safety behavior the law now incentivizes.

And for Congress? This ruling creates pressure to act. The freight brokerage lobby is powerful, and it is not going to accept this outcome quietly. Expect lobbying efforts to amend the FAAAA to explicitly preempt broker negligent-hiring claims — essentially reversing the Supreme Court through legislation. Whether that succeeds depends on the political dynamics of the moment. But it is coming.

The Bigger Point: This Is What Accountability Looks Like

There's a version of this story that gets told in the legal trade press as a pure business risk story — how brokers need to update their compliance programs, what their insurance premiums will do, how Robinson's stock price reacted. That's a real story and it matters.

But there's another version that starts with Shawn Montgomery on the shoulder of I-70 on a December morning, doing nothing wrong, just waiting for help, and then losing his leg because a broker decided it was good enough to hire a carrier that federal regulators had already flagged as unsafe.

For nearly nine years, the law told him that the entity responsible for putting that carrier on the road — the one that selected it, contracted with it, and dispatched it — was beyond the reach of state tort law. That the FAAAA created a kind of legal force field around the brokerage industry that no injury lawsuit could penetrate.

On May 14, 2026, nine justices of the Supreme Court — conservative and liberal, appointed by presidents of both parties — said: no. The law does not say that. The text does not support that reading. And the idea that Congress, when it passed an economic deregulation statute in 1994, intended to immunize freight brokers from all accountability for the consequences of negligently putting dangerous trucks on the roads of America — that idea does not survive contact with the actual statutory text.

That's a win. Not just for Montgomery. For everyone who drives on American highways and has no idea that the 80,000-pound truck in the next lane was selected by a company that might never have been held accountable for that choice until now.

Sources & Further Reading: Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, 608 U.S. ___ (2026) · SCOTUSblog case page · Ogletree Deakins post-ruling analysis (May 14, 2026) · Clausen Miller P.C. industry analysis (May 2026) · Kahana Feld legal advisory (May 19, 2026) · Morris James LLP case guide (May 2026) · Segal McCambridge / JDSupra brief (May 2026)

Moving across the country is already a lot. You've got boxes everywhere, a lease ending in three weeks, and now you're staring at your car like, how does this thing get to Miami? Driving it 1,400 miles solo sounds romantic until you actually price out the gas and the two nights in motels.

Car shipping is genuinely less scary and cheaper than most people expect.

First, the two options: Open transport means your car rides on a multi-level trailer with other vehicles — standard, affordable, totally fine for most cars. Enclosed transport gives your car a covered, protected trailer worth it for luxury or classic vehicles, costs roughly 40–60% more. Most people go open.

Service worth your time:

→ Cross Auto Transport LLC — door-to-door shipping with real-time online tracking available 24/7 using a unique booking number assigned when you schedule. Transit time follows a simple rule: roughly one day per 500 miles, so a 1,000-mile move runs about 2–3 days. They offer both open and enclosed carriers, plus optional top-load placement for added protection. A verified customer reported their car was transported from California to Texas in just four days — faster than expected with excellent communication and clear paperwork throughout.

Two things that will actually help you: Book 2–4 weeks out when possible, last-minute shipping costs more. And always confirm the carrier's insurance coverage before handing over your keys. The FMCSA recommends avoiding any transporter that doesn't clearly display their MC number on their website .

Get your quote, check the tracking portal, and breathe. You got this.