BlogLine

March 4, 2026: A big day for transportation at the highest courts

2/19/26

By: William Carson and Christopher Hanlon

March 4, 2026, is shaping up to be a big day for transportation at the Supreme Court of the United States and the Supreme Court of Texas. Both Courts will hear oral argument on cases that could significantly change the tort liability for brokers and shippers respectively.

First up, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, No. 24-1238. Montgomery asks the Court to decide whether 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(1) preempts state common-law claims against a broker[1] for negligently selecting a motor carrier or driver. While the statute generally preempts most state law claims, one exception to this preemption is the safety exception. Under this exception, the statute does not preempt the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles. 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(2)(A).

There is a circuit split on the applicability of the safety exception to negligence claims against brokers. Both the Sixth Circuit and the Ninth Circuit have held that the safety exception applied and permitted state-law negligent selection or hiring claims against brokers to proceed. Cox v. Total Quality Logistics, Inc., 142 F.4th 847 (6th Cir. 2025); Miller v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., 976 F.3d 1016 (9th Cir. 2020). In contrast, the Seventh Circuit and Eleventh Circuit have held that the safety exception does not apply, preempting state law negligence claims against brokers. Ye v. GlobalTranz Enterprises, Inc., 74 F.4th 453 (7th Cir. 2023); Aspen Am. Ins. Co. v. Landstar Ranger, Inc., 65 F.4th 1261 (11th Cir. 2023) The United States has filed a brief as amicus curiae supporting preemption and the position taken by the broker.

Whichever way the Court rules will definitively answer the preemption question and resolve the split in authority. A ruling against preemption means more brokers, especially in cases with significant injuries or death, may be brought in as a defendant alongside the motor carrier and its driver.

Also on March 4, the Texas Supreme Court will hear In Re Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., No.

25-0317. Home Depot asks the Court to decide whether a shipper who hires a motor carrier owes a duty to a third‑party motorist allegedly injured by the carrier’s driver. Much like the broker case at the U.S. Supreme Court, this case will determine whether an injured party can bring negligence claims against a shipper for an accident not caused by the shipper’s employee.

If the Texas Supreme Court rules for the injured party, shippers may face more claims for accidents allegedly caused by the employee of a commercial motor carrier. More broadly, this case may also impact what duties are owed by, the claims that can be brought against, and the potential liability of anyone who hires an independent contractor in Texas.

For more information on this topic please contact William Carson, Christopher Hanlon or your local FMG attorney.

Information conveyed herein should not be construed as legal advice or represent any specific or binding policy or procedure of any organization. Information provided is for educational purposes only. These materials are written in a general format and not intended to be advice applicable to any specific circumstance. Legal opinions may vary when based on subtle factual distinctions. All rights reserved. No part of this presentation may be reproduced, published or posted without the written permission of Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP.

---

[1] Defined as “a person, other than a motor carrier or an employee or agent of a motor carrier, that as a principal or agent sells, offers for sale, negotiates for, or holds itself out by solicitation, advertisement, or otherwise as selling, providing, or arranging for, transportation by motor carrier for compensation.” 49 U.S.C. § 13102(2)