U.S. Supreme Court Holds Negligent-Hiring Claims Against Freight Brokers Are Not Preempted By The FAAAA

In a unanimous 9-0 decision, the United States Supreme Court held that state-law negligent hiring claims against freight brokers are not preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (“FAAAA”). The Court reversed the Seventh Circuit and held that such claims fall within the FAAAA’ s “safety exception”, which preserves state “safety regulatory authority…with respect to motor vehicles.” 49 U. S. C. §14501 (c)(2)(A).

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the Court, framed the issue narrowly: whether a negligent-hiring claim against a freight broker is a claim “with respect to motor vehicles.” Relying on dictionary definitions and the Court’s prior interpretation of the phrase in Dan’s City Used Cars, Inc. v. Pelkey, 569 U. S. 251, 261 (2013), the Court explained that “with respect to” means “concerns." “Applying that interpretation, the Court concluded that requiring a broker to exercise ordinary care in selecting a carrier plainly concerns motor vehicles, “most obviously, the trucks that will transport the goods.” Because the claim directly implicates motor vehicle safety, it falls within the statutory safety exception and survives preemption.

The Court rejected several arguments advanced by C.H. Robinson and the brokerage industry.

First, the Court rejected the argument that recognizing negligent-hiring claims would effectively swallow the FAAAA’ s preemption clause. Justice Barrett emphasized that the safety exception preserves only laws and claims tied to motor vehicle safety. State laws affecting broker prices, routes, or services that are unrelated to safety remain preempted.

Second, the Court rejected C.H. Robinson’s "surplusage" argument. The broker argued that interpreting the safety exception to encompass negligent-hiring claims would create unnecessary overlap between the FAAAA’ s broad preemption provision and the statutory safety exception. Justice Barrett disagreed, explaining that any surplusage exists regardless of how broadly “with respect to motor vehicles” is interpreted because the overlap derives from Congress’s use of the term “safety” itself. The Court declined to narrow the safety exception simply to avoid some degree of statutory redundancy.

Third, the Court addressed the statutory structure argument based on §14501(b)(1) of the FAAAA, which governs intrastate transportation and contains no corresponding safety exception. Although Justice Barrett acknowledged that Congress’s drafting choices created some tension within the statute, the Court declined to rewrite the text to resolve it, stating: “Better to live with the mystery than to rewrite the statute.”

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined by Justice Samuel Alito, filed a concurring opinion agreeing with the Court’s ultimate conclusion while emphasizing that the preemption issue was closer than the majority opinion suggested. Kavanaugh acknowledged several considerations favoring broader broker preemption. He noted that Congress imposed minimum insurance requirements on motor carriers, but not brokers, suggesting Congress may not have expected brokers to face direct tort liability for carrier-selection decisions.

Justice Kavanaugh’s concurrence also addressed a significant issue involving intrastate transportation. He noted that courts generally agree the FAAAA preempts state tort suits against brokers arising from the arrangement of intrastate transportation because the applicable statutory provision does not contain a corresponding safety exception. As a result, the Court’s interpretation creates an unusual framework in which certain negligent-hiring claims involving interstate transportation may proceed under the safety exception, while similar claims involving intrastate transportation may remain preempted. Justice Kavanaugh acknowledged that this outcome appears “exactly backwards” from ordinary federalism principles, which would typically favor broader state authority over intrastate activity than interstate commerce.

Nevertheless, Kavanaugh concluded that the statutory text and structure favored preserving negligent-hiring claims. He emphasized that the FAAAA was enacted as an economic deregulation statute, not a safety deregulation statute. In his view, it would be difficult to conclude that Congress intended to preserve tort liability against motor carriers for unsafe driving while simultaneously immunizing brokers whose carrier-selection decisions allegedly contributed to the same accidents.

The concurrence also focused heavily on the lack of meaningful federal regulation governing broker carrier-selection practices. While federal law requires brokers to use federally registered carriers, Kavanaugh noted that federal regulations impose few substantive safety standards governing how brokers evaluate or select carriers. He warned that adopting the broker’s interpretation would leave broker hiring decisions in a “black hole with no meaningful safety-related regulation.”

Taken together, the majority and concurring opinions make clear that broker carrier-selection practices will face scrutiny following Montgomery and that state-law negligence claims will remain a significant source of exposure for the freight brokerage industry.

Best Practices for Freight Brokers

In light of Montgomery, brokers should consider implementing or strengthening the following practices:

• Document carrier-selection decisions. Maintain records reflecting the safety information reviewed and the basis for approving a carrier.
   
• Review publicly available safety data. Evaluate FMCSA SAFER information, SMS BASIC scores, crash history, inspection history, and out-of-service rates before assigning loads.
   
• Adopt written vetting procedures. Establish consistent onboarding and monitoring protocols, including escalation procedures for elevated-risk carriers.
   
• Preserve records long-term. Retain onboarding files, communications, safety reviews, and dispatch documentation in anticipation of future litigation.
   
• Review contractual protections. Reassess indemnity provisions, insurance requirements, and risk-allocation language in broker-carrier agreements.
   
• Evaluate insurance coverage. Confirm whether existing policies adequately respond to negligent-hiring and negligent-selection claims following Montgomery.
   
• Train personnel involved in carrier selection. Ensure employees understand documentation expectations and carrier-review procedures.

The Court’s decision makes clear that carrier-selection practices will remain a central focus in transportation litigation, particularly where publicly available safety data could support allegations that a broker failed to exercise reasonable care in selecting a carrier.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.