The Supreme Court’s Montgomery case may look like a narrow legal fight over federal preemption. In practice, it is a test of whether your carrier-selection process is disciplined enough to survive scrutiny.
For years, broker liability sat in the background.
Something Legal worried about. Something insurance mentioned at renewal. Something ops assumed would stay somebody else’s problem.
Not anymore.
On March 4, the Supreme Court heard Montgomeryv. Caribe Transport II, LLC, a case asking whether federal law preempts a state-law negligent-selection claim against a freight broker, or whether the FAAAA’s safety exception keeps that kind of claim alive. The case stems from a 2017 Illinois crash involving a carrier selected by broker C.H. Robinson, and it arrives with unusually broad industry attention, including briefs from the United States, Amazon, the U.S. Chamber, Airlines for America, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the Transportation Intermediaries Association.
To be clear: this is not legal advice. It is operational risk advice for a market where today’s booking shortcut can become tomorrow’s exhibit.
What the Court Is Actually Deciding
The legal question is deceptively simple. Section 14501(c)(1) of the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (FAAAA) broadly preempts state laws related to a broker’s prices, routes, or services. But Section 14501(c)(2)(A) preserves a state’s “safety regulatory authority … with respect to motor vehicles.” Montgomery says a negligent-selection claim belongs in that safety carveout. Robinson and the federal government say it does not, because brokers arrange transportation; they do not own or operate the truck itself.
That split is not academic. The Supreme Court took the case to resolve a real divide: the 6th and 9th Circuits have allowed these claims to proceed, while the 7th and 11th Circuits have held they are preempted. A decision is expected by June.
At argument, several justices pushed on two competing instincts.
The first is practical: if states can impose negligent-selection liability, how far does a broker’s duty go in checking drivers, equipment, English proficiency, or drug-testing programs?
The other is structural: if a state can regulate driver fitness and vehicle safety, why can’t it also reach the decision that puts that driver behind the wheel on a given load?
That tension is exactly why the case matters.
Why This Matters Far Beyond the Courtroom
Here’s the real freight problem: carrier selection does not happen in a calm environment.
It happens when a customer needs coverage now. When a lane is heating up. When a rep is staring at a missed pickup risk, and the only available option is a carrier that the team has not fully pressure tested.
That’s when “good enough” sneaks in, and then when liability gets created.
If the Court allows negligent-selection claims to move forward, plaintiff lawyers will spend less time arguing abstract legal theory and more time asking for your process. Who approved the carrier? What did you check? What did you skip? What warning signs were visible? Where is the record?
If your answers live across email threads, PDFs, and somebody’s memory, you do not have a defensible workflow. You have a story.
Plus, even if the Court sides with the brokers, the lesson remains. The case has already put carrier-selection discipline under a spotlight. Shippers, insurers, and counterparties are not moving toward looser standards. They are moving toward proof.
The Missing Piece Is the Audit Trail
A defensible carrier-selection process usually comes down to five things:
- A minimum vetting standard before tender
- Automatic checks on authority, safety, and insurance
- Clear exception codes when something falls outside policy
- Escalation and approval before a risky carrier is used
- A timestamped record showing that the process actually happened
This is where technology stops being a “nice to have” and becomes margin protection. At EKA, we have several tools that bring this to life:.
- Risk & Compliance Guardrails keep carrier vetting, safety, and insurance controls inside the booking workflow.
- WAMS surfaces missed steps, paperwork gaps, and missed deadlines before they disappear into the cracks.
- EKA On-Time™ helps teams manage real service exceptions without drowning in noise.
- EKA DockTime™ creates objective, time-stamped evidence when disputes over delay, detention, or service performance arise later.
What Smart Brokers Should Do Before the Decision Lands
You do not need to wait for the opinion to get ready.
- Standardize the floor. Define the minimum carrier checks required on every load, every time.
- Separate exceptions from improvisation. If a carrier falls outside policy, require a documented approval path rather than a hallway decision.
- Keep proof in the workflow. Screenshots, emails, and tribal memory are not a system. A unified platform is.
- Train for surge moments. The riskiest tenders happen when the market gets tight and teams feel pressure to just cover the load.
- Decide now what you will defend later. If a plaintiff asks why this carrier got the freight, your ops team should not be inventing that answer under oath.
The Bottom Line: Montgomery Is Already Changing the Standard
The Court will answer the legal question. The market is already answering the operational one.
Broker carrier selection is no longer just a coverage function. It is a risk function. A service function. And increasingly, a documentation function.
Full stop.
Whether the Supreme Court narrows broker exposure or broadens it, the companies that win from here will be the ones that can move fast without getting sloppy, cover freight without lowering the bar, and prove what they did after the load is gone.
Talk to EKA Solutions about building that discipline into every load you touch.