U.S. Solicitor General throws support behind C.H. Robinson in freight broker liability case
Summary
The U.S. Solicitor General, D. John Sauer, filed an amicus brief supporting C.H. Robinson in the Supreme Court case Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC. The brief urges the Court to clarify that federal law pre-empts state-level negligent-selection claims against freight brokers, and to establish uniform federal rules governing how freight moves across state lines while preserving safety oversight by the Department of Transportation and FMCSA. C.H. Robinson and a coalition of industry players — including Amazon, Wayfair, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers and the Transportation Intermediaries Association — argue a clear federal standard is needed to avoid conflicting state rulings. Oral argument is scheduled for 4 March.
Key Points
- Solicitor General D. John Sauer filed an amicus brief backing C.H. Robinson, urging the Supreme Court to confirm federal pre-emption in broker liability claims.
- The case, Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, asks whether state negligent-selection tort claims against brokers are pre-empted by Section 14501(c) and the FAAAA (the latter’s pre-emption clause applies to motor carriers and brokers).
- The U.S. government emphasises Congress intended to prevent States from undercutting federal regulation of prices, routes and services for motor carriers, brokers and freight forwarders, while preserving federal safety regulation.
- Major shippers, trade groups and industry stakeholders filed supporting briefs arguing that a uniform federal rule would reduce inconsistent litigation, protect interstate commerce and preserve competition.
- A Supreme Court decision affirming federal pre-emption could materially reduce brokers’ exposure to varied state-law claims and bring greater legal certainty for brokers, carriers and shippers operating across state lines.
Why should I read this?
Look — if you work with brokers, carriers or move goods across state lines, this case could change who gets sued (and who pays) when something goes wrong. A win for C.H. Robinson means fewer state-by-state lawsuits, less legal chaos and clearer rules for moving freight. It’s short, it matters, and it affects costs and risk across the supply chain.
Author’s take
Punchy: This isn’t just legal nit‑picking. It’s a potential reset for broker liability and interstate freight operations. With the Solicitor General and a coalition of big industry names behind C.H. Robinson, the stakes — and the likelihood of a landmark ruling — are high. Definitely worth watching if you care about regulatory clarity and liability exposure.
Context and relevance
The dispute sits at the intersection of federalism, commerce and safety oversight. Section 14501(c) and the FAAAA historically limit state interference with federally governed aspects of motor carrier and broker services; however, states have increasingly allowed negligent-selection claims that create divergent outcomes across jurisdictions. The Supreme Court’s decision will influence regulatory clarity, litigation risk and commercial practice for brokers, carriers and shippers — and will inform how regulators (DOT, FMCSA) and courts balance federal deregulation with state safety authority. Analysts and trade bodies view the ruling as critical to preserving a single national framework for interstate freight.