On December 5, 2025, Hilton Parker LLC filed an amicus brief in the United States Supreme Court in the case Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC et al. The Court’s ruling will have major consequences for highway safety and for families injured by negligent hiring practices in the trucking industry.
What Is Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II About?
Montgomery concerns a fundamental question: Does a federal tariff and transport deregulation statute wipe out ordinary state-law negligence claims against freight brokers and motor carriers?
The case arises from a catastrophic crash. The plaintiff, Shawn Montgomery, alleges that the freight broker negligently hired or contracted with an unsafe motor carrier, leading to a preventable highway tragedy. When Mr. Montgomery sued, the freight broker argued that his claims were preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA), a statute that contains a preemption clause affecting some state laws relating to the transportation of property.
Most courts for decades held that the FAAAA does not preempt generally applicable negligence laws. But in recent years, a small set of appellate decisions—particularly in the Seventh Circuit—have taken a broader view of FAAAA preemption. These decisions treat ordinary negligent-hiring cases as if they were “regulating” motor carriers, even though these same negligence laws apply to all industries from hospitals to construction to manufacturing.
The Supreme Court granted review in Montgomery to resolve this growing split and to decide whether victims can still sue brokers and carriers for negligent hiring.
What Our Amicus Brief Argues
Our brief advances a straightforward textualist argument:
Under the actual text of the FAAAA, only state laws that single out the transportation industry for special treatment are preempted. General negligence claims—like negligent hiring—are not.
Here are the brief’s core points:
The FAAAA’s limiting phrase—“with respect to the transportation of property”—massively narrows preemption.
As our brief explains, the Supreme Court has recognized that this phrase “massively limits the scope” of the FAAAA’s preemption clause. The clause preempts only state laws that are specifically about the transportation of property. Generally applicable duties—like exercising ordinary care when selecting contractors—do not fall into that category.
For a law to be preempted, it must “single out” motor carriers or brokers.
Relying on Justice Scalia’s textual analysis in Ours Garage, our brief explains that the FAAAA preempts only regulations that treat motor carriers differently from everyone else. Negligent-hiring duties apply to hospitals, manufacturers, construction firms, and trucking companies alike. This universality shows that these laws do not “target” the transportation industry and therefore remain outside the preemption clause.
Courts expanding preemption have committed an analytical error by importing Airline Deregulation Act (ADA) case law.
Some courts have treated the FAAAA as identical to the Airline Deregulation Act, which broadly preempts state laws affecting airline prices and services. But as our brief demonstrates, that is incorrect. The ADA lacks the critical limiting phrase “with respect to the transportation of property,” making the ADA far broader than the FAAAA. The Seventh Circuit’s recent approach overlooks this distinction.
In short, if the FAAAA only preempts laws that uniquely regulate motor carriers, then a state’s universal duty to hire competent contractors remains intact—and victims like Mr. Montgomery can still bring claims.
Why This Case Matters
The Supreme Court’s decision will shape public safety on America’s highways for decades. If the Court adopts the expansive preemption theory, freight brokers could hire unsafe carriers with no civil accountability.
If the Court adopts the textualist view we advance, longstanding safety duties remain intact, and our roads will be safer for it.
We believe the text, structure, history, and purpose of the FAAAA all point in one direction: Congress never intended to immunize negligent hiring in the trucking industry.
Hilton Parker is proud to submit this amicus brief and to support a ruling that protects the traveling public while respecting the text Congress enacted.