Broker Liability and the FAAAA: Supreme Court to Finally Weigh In

The Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA) was enacted to create uniformity in the regulation of motor carriers and brokers, preempting a patchwork of state laws that could interfere with interstate commerce. However, in recent years, a sharp circuit split has emerged over whether the FAAAA preempts state-law negligent selection claims against freight brokers. This split has left brokers, shippers, insurers, and litigants in a state of uncertainty, with dramatically different outcomes depending on the jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court’s January 2024 denial of certiorari in Gauthier v. Total Quality Logistics, LLC left the issue unresolved, but the split has only deepened since then. With the Seventh Circuit’s Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC decision and a new Sixth Circuit opinion, the legal landscape is more fractured than ever. The time is ripe for Supreme Court intervention.

The Legal Framework: FAAAA Preemption and the Safety Exception

The FAAAA expressly preempts state laws “related to a price, route, or service of any motor carrier … or any motor private carrier, broker, or freight forwarder with respect to the transportation of property.” 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(1). However, Congress carved out a “safety exception,” providing that the statute “shall not restrict the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles.” 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(2)(A).

Does this exception save state-law negligent selection claims against brokers from preemption?

The Circuit Split: Where the Courts Stand

Ninth Circuit: Safety Exception Applies

In Miller v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., 976 F.3d 1016 (9th Cir. 2020), the Ninth Circuit held that while negligent selection claims against brokers are “related to” broker services and thus fall within the scope of FAAAA preemption, the safety exception applies. The court reasoned that common-law tort claims are part of a state’s safety regulatory authority and that claims arising from motor vehicle accidents are “with respect to motor vehicles.” Thus, such claims are not preempted.

Seventh and Eleventh Circuits: Strict Preemption

By contrast, the Seventh Circuit Ye v. GlobalTranz Enterprises, Inc., 74 F.4th 453 (7th Cir. 2023), Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, 124 F.4th 1053 (7th Cir. 2025), and the Eleventh Circuit Aspen Am. Ins. v. Landstar Ranger, Inc., 65 F.4th 1261 (11th Cir. 2023), have held that the safety exception does not apply to broker negligent selection claims. Both circuits reasoned that such claims lack a “direct” link to motor vehicles, as required by their interpretation of the statutory language. As a result, brokers are immune from civil liability for negligent selection in these jurisdictions—even if they knowingly select unsafe carriers.

Sixth Circuit: Aligns with the Ninth

In July 2025, the Sixth Circuit in Cox v. Total Quality Logistics, Inc. joined the Ninth Circuit, holding that the safety exception does apply to negligent selection claims against brokers. The court rejected the “direct link” requirement, finding that the substance of the claim—alleging a broker’s failure to exercise reasonable care in selecting a safe carrier—plainly involves motor vehicles and motor vehicle safety.

State Courts and District Courts: Even More Division

State appellate courts and federal district courts are also split, with some following the Ninth and Sixth Circuits’ broader reading of the safety exception, and others adhering to the narrower approach of the Seventh and Eleventh Circuits. In Illinois, for example, a state appellate court recently held that negligent selection claims against brokers are not preempted, creating a direct conflict with the Seventh Circuit’s federal precedent.

Why This Matters: Practical Implications

• Forum Shopping: Plaintiffs’ attorneys are incentivized to file in jurisdictions where the safety exception is recognized, while defense counsel must be vigilant about removal and venue strategy. Venue is a particularly important consideration in forums when there is a split between the Federal Circuit and State law. (i.e. Illinois where a negligent selection case would be expressly preempted under Ye in Illinois Federal Courts but permitted under the Illinois State law).
• Insurance and Risk: Brokers face dramatically different liability exposures depending on the circuit, complicating insurance procurement and risk management.
• Business Uncertainty: The lack of uniformity undermines the FAAAA’s goal of national consistency and creates operational headaches for brokers and shippers engaged in interstate commerce.

The Supreme Court’s Reluctance—But for How Long?

Despite multiple cert petitions, including Ye and Gauthier, the Supreme Court was reluctant to take up the issue.

However, in October of 2025, the Supreme Court finally agreed to address this issue via Montgomery, the 7th Circuit’s decision to uphold and apply Ye. The Circuit split appears to be widening as the 6th and 9th Circuits rely on the safety exception to allow Negligent Selection cases against brokers, while the 7th and 11th Circuits expressly reject the safety exception.

With the split now encompassing at least three circuits and conflicting state and federal decisions within the same states, the pressure on the Supreme Court to grant review is mounting. As the Montgomery petition argues, only the Supreme Court can restore uniformity and provide the clarity that the industry desperately needs.

The Future of FAAA Preemption of State Law Negligent Selection Claims

In light of the Supreme Court Granting certiorari in Montgomery it is expected that the Court will issue a decision by the end of the term in June of 2026. That ruling should provide some guidance moving forward and will likely shape future of state law negligence claims against a broker.