U.S. Government Files Amicus Brief Supporting Freight Brokers In Case Pending At The Supreme Court

The U.S. government has filed an amicus brief in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, supporting freight brokers and cautioning against state-law claims that would interfere with their operations. The government warns that allowing such claims could undermine the uniform federal framework governing interstate transportation and create inconsistent state standards.

The Department of Justice argues that plaintiff Montgomery's claim against the broker defendant, C.H. Robinson, is preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA), which limits state regulation of brokers who arrange transportation for compensation. The fact pattern in the case is common to many lawsuits arising from traffic accidents: after Montgomery was injured in a truck crash in Illinois, he sued both the driver of the truck and the motor carrier that employed the driver, while also suing C.H. Robinson for negligently selecting the carrier and driver to transport property.

In its amicus brief, the government explains that the FAAAA establishes that a state "may not enact or enforce a law, regulation, or other provision having the force and effect of law related to a price, route, or service of any motor carrier..., broker, or freight forwarder with respect to the transportation of property." 28 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(1). The government notes that courts have repeatedly held that common-law duties affecting prices, routes, or services fall within FAAAA preemption. It states that that the common-law duties at issue here "relate to a broker's core service of arranging transportation by a motor carrier." The government relies on the definition of a broker under 49 U.S.C. 13102(2), which states that a broker arranges for "transportation by motor carrier for compensation." As such, holding brokers liable for carrier selection could directly affect how they operate and will have "significant effect on the broker's prices and services."

Furthermore, the government emphasizes that the FAAAA's safety exception is limited to laws "with respect to motor vehicles" and does not extend to brokers' business decisions. The brief states that the services that Montgomery claims were negligently performed involved the transportation of property and as such do not fall with the FAAAA's safety exception.

In conclusion, the DOJ contends that Montgomery's claim is precisely the type of state regulation that the FAAAA was designed to preempt. Allowing such claims would not only impose inconsistent rules on the interstate transportation system, but also disrupt the carefully calibrated balance of deregulation intended by Congress.

Oral argument in the case has been set for Wednesday, March 4, 2026. On January 21, 2026, the U.S. government has filed a motion for leave to participate in the oral argument and permission for more than one attorney to argue for a single side during oral arguments, departing from the standard rule of one advocate per side.