Amicus Curiae Brief — Shawn Montgomery, Petitioner v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, et al.

No. 24-1238

IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States

-----------------------------------------------------------SHAWN MONTGOMERY,

Petitioner,

v.

CARIBE TRANSPORT II, LLC, YOSNIEL VARELA-MOJENA,

C.H. ROBINSON WORLDWIDE, INC.,

C.H. ROBINSON COMPANY, C.H. ROBINSON COMPANY, INC.,

C.H. ROBINSON INTERNATIONAL, INC., and

CARIBE TRANSPORT, LLC,

Respondents.

-----------------------------------------------------------On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the

United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh

Circuit

-----------------------------------------------------------BRIEF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF

MANUFACTURERS, AS AMICUS CURIAE IN

SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS

-----------------------------------------------------------ERICA KLENICKI

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF MANUFACTURERS

733 10th Street, N.W.

Suite 700

Washington, D.C. 20001

Counsel for National

Association of

Manufacturers

JAMES H. BURNLEY IV

RONALD M. JACOBS

Counsel of Record

CHRISTOPHER L. BOONE

VENABLE LLP

600 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20001

(202) 344-8215

RMJacobs@venable.com

Counsel for Amicus Curiae

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents ......................................................... i

Table of Authorities ................................................... iii

Interest of the Amicus Curiae .................................... 1

Introduction and Summary of Argument .................. 2

Argument .................................................................... 6

I. Freight Transportation Is Essential to the

Economy, and a Lack of Uniform

Interpretation of FAAAA Preemption

Impedes the Flow of Goods. ............................. 6

II. Existing Comprehensive Federal and

State Regulation, Not Broker Tort

Liability, Ensures Roadway Safety. .............. 10

A. Freight Transportation Is Governed by

a

Comprehensive

Regulatory

Framework of Federal and State Law. .... 10

B. Brokers Lack Reliable Means to

Evaluate Carrier Safety, Rendering a

Negligence Standard Unworkable. .......... 12

1. The CSA System Is a Law

Enforcement Tool, Not a Safety

Ranking for Brokers. ........................... 13

2. Significant Flaws in CSA Data

Undermine Reliability for

Comparative Safety Assessments. ...... 14

ii

III.Conflicting Circuit Decisions on Broker

Liability

Will

Disrupt

Commerce,

Increase Costs, and Harm Manufacturers,

Retailers, and Consumers.............................. 16

Conclusion ................................................................. 19

iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)

Cases

Aspen American Insurance Co. v. Landstar Rangers,

Inc., 65 F.4th 1261 (11th Cir. 2023)................... 2-3

Kaipust v. Echo Global Logistics, Inc., No. 1-24-0530,

2025 WL 1721661 (Ill. App. Ct. June 20, 2025)

.......................................................................... 3, 18

Miller v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., 976 F.3d

1016 (9th Cir. 2020), cert. denied, C.H. Robinson

Worldwide, Inc. v. Miller, 142 S. Ct. 2866 (2022)

.......................................................................... 2, 18

Ye v. GlobalTranz Enterprises, Inc., 74 F.4th 453 (7th

Cir. 2023), cert. denied, 144 S. Ct. 564 (2024) ... 2-3

Statutes

49 U.S.C. § 14501(c) .................................................... 1

49 U.S.C. § 14501 ..................................................... 2-3

Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act,

Pub. L. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312 (2015)................. 15

Regulations & Administrative Materials

49 C.F.R. parts 300–399 ...................................... 10-11

49 C.F.R. § 385.11 ..................................................... 13

49 C.F.R. § 393.24 ..................................................... 11

iv

49 C.F.R. § 393.52 ..................................................... 11

49 C.F.R. § 393.60 .................................................... 11

49 C.F.R. § 395 .......................................................... 11

Nevada Admin. Code § 706.2472 ............................. 11

Withdrawal of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Regarding Carrier Safety Fitness Determination,

82 Fed. Reg. 14,848 (Mar. 23, 2017). .................. 15

Other Authorities

About the Alliance, CVSA,

https://www.cvsa.org/about-cvsa/about-thealliance/ ................................................................ 11

Bulk Connection, FreightWaves Examines the Growth

of US Freight Brokers (Oct. 27, 2023) ................... 8

CVSA’s 2021 Out-of-Service Criteria Now in Effect,

CVSA, https://www.cvsa.org/news/2021-oosc/ .... 11

Economics & Industry Data, Am. Trucking Ass’n,

https://www.trucking.org/economics-and-industrydata .................................................................. 6, 16

Joe McDevitt, News and Analysis for Transportation

Industry Shippers, Translogistics (July 30, 2024) 8

NAM, Facts About Manufacturing,

https://nam.org/mfgdata/facts-aboutmanufacturing-expanded/ ..................................... 1

Nat’l Acad. of Scis., Improving Motor Carrier Safety

Measurement (2017) ............................................ 15

v

Office of Inspector Gen., U.S. Dep’t of

Transportation, Report No. ST2019084, FMCSA’s

Plan Addresses Recommendations on Prioritizing

Safety Interventions But Lacks Implementation

Details (2019) .................................................. 14-15

Precedence Research, Freight Brokerage Market Size,

Share and Trends 2025 to 2034, Report Code 5939

(Apr. 16, 2025) ....................................................... 8

Ryder, State of the Industry Report (Oct. 24, 2023)... 8

Todd Dills, Risk & Reward: How CSA’s data shows

discrimination toward small carriers, CCG

Digital (Aug. 6, 2013), https://www.ccjdigital.com/

business/article/14927194/risk-reward-how-csasdata-shows-discrimination-toward-small-carriers

.............................................................................. 17

U.S. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Transp. Statistics,

Transportation Statistics Annual Report 2024

(Dec. 1, 2024) ......................................................... 6

U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO-11-858, Motor

Carrier Safety: More Assessment and

Transparency Could Enhance Benefits of New

Oversight Program (2011) ................................... 13

U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO-14-114,

Federal Motor Carrier Safety: Modifying the

Compliance, Safety, Accountability Program

Would Improve the Ability to Identify High Risk

Carriers (2014) ..................................................... 14

vi

U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO-17-132, Motor

Carriers: Establishing System for Self-Reporting

Equipment Problems Appears Feasible, But Safety

Benefits Questionable and Costs Unknown (2016).

.............................................................................. 14

U.S. Small Bus. Admin., Make Onshoring Great

Again Portal (May 20, 2025). ................................ 9

1

INTEREST OF THE AMICUS CURIAE 1

The National Association of Manufactures

(“NAM”) represents companies engaged in every stage

of the supply chain, from sourcing raw materials to

manufacturing finished goods that are then shipped

to retailers and consumers. NAM is the largest

manufacturing association in the United States,

representing 14,000 member companies, including

small and large manufacturers in every industrial

sector and in all 50 states.

Manufacturing employs nearly 13 million men and

women, contributes $2.94 trillion to the U.S. economy

annually, has the largest economic impact of any

major sector, and accounts for more than half of all

private-sector research and development in the

nation. NAM,

Facts

About

Manufacturing,

https://nam.org/mfgdata/facts-about-manufacturingexpanded/ (last visited July 5, 2025). NAM is the voice

of the manufacturing community and the leading

advocate for a policy agenda that helps manufacturers

compete in the global economy and create jobs across

the United States.

NAM’s members depend on commercial trucking to

move goods nationwide and frequently rely on freight

brokers to arrange that transportation. Accordingly,

NAM submits this brief to urge the Court to grant the

Petition to consider the appropriate scope of

preemption of negligent hiring suits under 49 U.S.C.

§ 14501(c). NAM is concerned that the inconsistent

1 No party’s counsel authored any part of this brief. No one apart

from amici, their members, and their counsel contributed money

intended to fund the brief’s preparation or submission. All

parties were notified of amici’s intent to submit this brief at least

10 days before it was due.

2

application of tort liability to freight brokers and

shippers will raise costs for businesses and consumers

alike, without providing any meaningful improvement

to highway safety.

INTRODUCTION AND

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

This case presents a matter of importance for the

Court to resolve: should freight brokers and shippers

be subject to negligent hiring claims as the Ninth

Circuit has allowed, or should such claims be

preempted by the clear provisions of the 49 U.S.C. §

14501 as the Seventh and Eleventh Circuits have

held? The current patchwork is untenable for the

nation’s manufacturers (and the brokers they retain

to help move both their goods and their means of

production). Since the question was first presented to

the Court in 2022, a clear circuit split has evolved, and

the amount of goods transported has increased. The

need for the Court to clarify the preemption provision

and the scope of a state’s safety regulatory authority

is essential. The Court now has before it two clearly

conflicting interpretations of that preemption

provision, and it should grant the Petition to resolve

that uncertainty.

The first case on negligent hiring to reach the

circuit courts came out of the Ninth Circuit. There, the

court found no preemption and allowed the claim to

stand. Miller v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., 976

F.3d 1016 (9th Cir. 2020), cert. denied, C.H. Robinson

Worldwide, Inc. v. Miller, 142 S. Ct. 2866 (2022). With

the passage of time, the Seventh and Eleventh

Circuits have considered the issue and reached the

opposite conclusion: that these claims are clearly

preempted. Ye v. GlobalTranz Enterprises, Inc., 74

3

F.4th 453 (7th Cir. 2023), cert. denied, 144 S. Ct. 564

(2024); Aspen American Insurance Co. v. Landstar

Rangers, Inc., 65 F.4th 1261 (11th Cir. 2023).

Moreover, not every negligence suit is decided in

federal court. As an example, an Illinois appellate

court recently followed the Ninth Circuit’s erroneous

interpretation and imposed liability on a broker.

Kaipust v. Echo Global Logistics, Inc., No. 1-24-0530,

2025 WL 1721661 (Ill. App. Ct. June 20, 2025). Thus,

a broker in Atlanta, Georgia, arranging transport for

a load from Reno, Nevada, to Indianapolis, Indiana,

could be hauled into Illinois state court as a result of

an accident on Interstate 72 near Springfield, Illinois.

That broker could remove the case to federal court and

win on a motion to dismiss based on preemption. But

if that broker is incorporated in Illinois, there would

be no diversity and the state court could find liability

without preemption.

The circuit split and conflicting state court

decisions cry out for this Court to resolve the question

of the scope of preemption in Section 14501. The irony

of a patchwork of interpretations on the scope of

preemption in a law designed to create national

uniformity requires the Court’s intervention.

Respondent has already set out the legal basis for

affirming the Seventh Circuit’s decision below.2 This

brief focuses on the broader policy implications of the

circuit split and the practical consequences of leaving

the question unresolved, and thus why the Court

should decide this issue now.

2 Respondents C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., C.H. Robinson

Company, Inc., C.H. Robinson International, Inc., and C.H.

Robinson Company are collectively referred to as Respondent.

4

First, this issue requires the Court’s intervention

because it is important to the nation’s economy. This

case and the issue of freight broker liability gets to the

heart of how goods flow across the country. And this

issue reaches far beyond just the interests of freight

brokers. The efficient transportation of goods by truck

is critical to nearly every segment of the American

economy. Manufacturers rely on timely truck

deliveries for raw materials and components.

Retailers depend on trucks to stock shelves,

warehouses, and distribution centers. Increasingly,

consumers expect rapid delivery of goods directly to

their homes, often through drop-shipping methods

that leave little margin for delays or inefficiencies.

Any disruption or increased cost in freight brokerage

services inevitably cascades through the economy,

affecting all these stakeholders and ultimately raising

prices for consumers.

Second, there is a carefully constructed,

comprehensive regulatory framework governing

motor carriers. That system, which involves a careful

blend of federal and state authorities, all using a

comprehensive and uniform set of standards,

establishes safe roadways Negligent hiring claims

under a patchwork of state laws will not increase the

safety of the roads; they will expose potential deep

pockets to recovery.

Even with this comprehensive regulatory

framework for safety, there is not an effective way for

brokers (or shippers) to determine the safety of the

carriers they hire. Exposing brokers and potentially

shippers to common-law negligence liability would

upend these essential functions. Brokers don’t control

the equipment or drivers of motor carriers, nor are

they equipped or authorized to assess safety risks

5

comprehensively. That role belongs to the

Department of Transportation and the Federal Motor

Carrier Safety Administration, which have the

expertise and resources to regulate carriers.

Thus, imposing tort liability would not enhance

safety. Instead, it may lead brokers to avoid smaller

or newer carriers in favor of large incumbents with

longer track records, regardless of actual risk. That

shift would reduce competition, raise freight costs,

and slow deliveries at a time when modern commerce

depends on rapid logistics. Consumers would face

delays and higher prices, and just-in-time inventory

systems would suffer.

Third, the consequences of allowing a patchwork of

state-law negligence claims to go forward do not stop

with brokers. If freight brokers are driven out of key

markets or forced to scale back, liability will not

disappear; it will shift to shippers, who are even less

equipped to evaluate carrier safety. These are

manufacturers, retailers, and distributors whose

expertise lies in production and commerce, not

transportation enforcement. Congress never intended

to saddle them with that burden, and doing so would

introduce cost and legal uncertainty across supply

chains the economy depends on.

The circuit split is substantial, explicit, and ripe

for this Court’s intervention. Unless corrected,

conflicting lower court interpretations of the FAAAA

will yield economic inefficiency, litigation burdens,

regulatory confusion, and distorted market incentives

across a national transportation system whose

effective operation demands consistent federal

regulation.

6

This case presents a recurring question of great

legal, practical, and economic importance that has not

been, but should be, resolved by the Court.

Accordingly, this Court should grant certiorari, affirm

the Seventh Circuit’s sound interpretation, and

restore the consistency Congress intended for freight

brokerage nationwide.

ARGUMENT

I.

Freight Transportation Is Essential to the

Economy, and a Lack of Uniform

Interpretation of FAAAA Preemption

Impedes the Flow of Goods.

The U.S. freight transportation system moved 20.1

billion tons of goods, valued at about $18.7 trillion in

2023, up from the 19.9 billion tons of goods moved in

the pre-COVID-19 year of 2019. Transportation

Statistics Annual Report 2024, U.S. Dep’t of Transp.,

Bureau of Transp. Statistics (Dec. 1, 2024). According

to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, trucking

continues to dominate as the principal mode of freight

transportation, moving 13.0 billion tons of cargo

valued at more than $13.6 trillion in 2023. Id. This

accounted for 64.5 percent of the total freight weight

and 72.5 percent of the total value. Id.

A diverse array of motor carriers, numbering more

than half a million nationwide, drives this massive

logistical operation. See Economics & Industry Data,

Am.

Trucking

Ass’n,

https://www.trucking.org/economics-and-industrydata (last visited July 5, 2025).

Carriers range widely in size and specialty, from

large national fleets to small local businesses and

7

single-owner operators. Trucks are indispensable to

every stage of the supply chain: transporting raw

materials, delivering manufactured products to

warehouses, and ensuring goods reach consumers

efficiently. Even shipments traveling by rail, air, or

sea frequently begin or end their journey by truck.

Retail practices such as “drop-shipping” rely

heavily on trucking networks. Under this increasingly

popular business model, retailers hold little or no

inventory, relying instead on rapid and reliable truck

transportation to deliver products directly from

manufacturers or wholesalers to end customers.

Without reliable and efficient trucking services, the

drop-shipping model, and the lower costs and

enhanced choices it provides consumers, would be

severely compromised.

Given the sheer number of carriers and complexity

of freight logistics, shippers frequently engage freight

brokers to navigate this intricate system. Brokers act

as expert intermediaries, connecting shippers with

suitable motor carriers based on routes, schedules,

pricing, and other logistical considerations. While

some large motor carriers operate their own brokerage

arms and may route freight internally when efficient,

brokers of all types play a critical role. Regardless of

structure, brokers bring expertise that allows

manufacturers and retailers to avoid costly,

burdensome internal logistics management, thereby

significantly reducing overhead costs. These savings

ultimately translate into lower prices for consumers.

Once brokers connect shippers with motor carriers,

they remain engaged in logistical coordination. Yet

brokers have neither the legal authority nor practical

ability to monitor closely the detailed operations of

8

carriers, including driver selection and specific

employment practices. Their essential role is limited

to matching shippers and carriers efficiently, not to

assume safety oversight that federal law expressly

assigns elsewhere.

And the need for freight brokers continues to

climb, with tens of thousands of active brokerage

firms in the market. Joe McDevitt, News and Analysis

for Transportation Industry Shippers, Translogistics

(July 30, 2024). Freight brokers now facilitate over

20% of that truck freight, up from just 6% in 2000, a

threefold increase that reflects the industry’s growing

dependence on brokers to navigate carrier networks

and secure capacity efficiently. Ryder, State of the

Industry Report (Oct. 24, 2023).

Indeed, U.S. freight brokerage market size was

evaluated at $12.67 billion in 2024, and one market

analysis estimates it to be worth $23.32 billion by

2034, growing at a Compound Annual Growth Rate

(“CAGR”) of 6.29% from 2025 to 2034. Precedence

Research, Freight Brokerage Market Size, Share and

Trends 2025 to 2034, Report Code 5939 (Apr. 16,

2025).

Far from being made obsolete by technology,

freight brokers have grown and adapted through the

use of new technologies in recent years. Today’s

freight brokers are heavily using digital tools, from

load-matching platforms to AI-based analytics, to

enhance their services. For instance, brokers now

commonly use algorithms and online load boards to

match loads with carrier capacity in real time, provide

instant freight quotes, and track shipments digitally.

Bulk Connection, FreightWaves Examines the Growth

of US Freight Brokers (Oct. 27, 2023). These

9

innovations have made brokers more responsive, more

precise, and more deeply embedded in modern supply

chains.

As policymakers continue to encourage domestic

manufacturing, the need for efficient freight

transportation will continue to grow. See, e.g., U.S.

Small Bus. Admin., Make Onshoring Great Again

Portal (May 20, 2025). As more production shifts to

U.S. soil, the movement of component parts and

finished goods across the country will necessarily

increase. That freight will not move itself. Freight

brokers, who excel at stitching together capacity from

thousands of U.S. trucking carriers, will be

indispensable to this manufacturing resurgence. The

more we build in America, the more we must ship

within America. This case, which concerns the legal

rules governing freight brokers, thus carries

heightened national importance as the economy grows

more dependent on domestic transport.

That economic reliance makes the legal

uncertainty surrounding freight brokers even more

urgent. The circuit split over the scope of the safety

exception has left freight brokers exposed to

inconsistent and expanding theories of tort liability.

Unless this Court intervenes to resolve the split,

brokers will continue to face mounting litigation risks,

prompting many to avoid smaller or newer carriers

that lack extensive safety records, not because they

are unsafe, but because the legal risk is too great.

That chilling effect would shrink carrier options, raise

shipping costs, and strain supply chains at a moment

when domestic logistics are more vital than ever.

10

II.

Existing Comprehensive Federal and State

Regulation, Not Broker Tort Liability,

Ensures Roadway Safety.

Freight brokers provide a critical intermediary

service in the transportation industry, yet they

neither own nor operate the trucks they arrange; they

do not employ the drivers or directly oversee carrier

operations. Instead, the responsibility for roadway

safety rests primarily and appropriately with motor

carriers and their drivers, entities directly subject to

an extensive, integrated network of federal and state

safety regulations. Tort liability against brokers is

thus not only unnecessary but also ineffective,

creating an untenable burden on brokers ill-equipped

to assume this regulatory role.

A. Freight Transportation Is Governed by

a Comprehensive Regulatory

Framework of Federal and State Law.

In designing the FAAAA, Congress recognized

both the vital role of trucking in the national economy

and the importance of keeping unsafe carriers off the

road. As evidenced by the safety exemption at issue in

this case, it created a system in which federal and

state governments work together to identify and

address safety risks in commercial transportation.

As a result of this partnership, federal and state

authorities already impose rigorous safety standards

designed specifically to monitor and ensure safe motor

carrier operations. The U.S. Department of

Transportation and its Federal Motor Carrier Safety

Administration

administer

a

comprehensive

regulatory framework, the Federal Motor Carrier

Safety Regulations (“FMCSR”), codified at 49 C.F.R.

11

parts 300–399. These regulations meticulously govern

every safety aspect of commercial trucking, from

drivers’ hours-of-service limitations, 49 C.F.R. § 395,

to essential vehicle safety features such as brakes, id.

§ 393.52, lighting, id. § 393.24, and window integrity,

id. § 393.60.

Critically, these federal safety standards are

seamlessly integrated into state law. Every state

adopts the FMCSRs as part of its intrastate

regulatory framework, enabling local enforcement

officials to apply a uniform set of safety rules

regardless of state borders. For instance, Nevada

explicitly incorporates numerous FMCSR provisions,

such as drug and alcohol testing, commercial driver

licensing, vehicle inspections, hazardous materials

transport, and mandatory insurance coverage,

directly into state regulations. See Nevada Admin.

Code § 706.2472. Other states achieve the same effect

through analogous statutes and regulatory schemes.

This coordinated federal–state partnership

ensures

consistency

and

thoroughness

in

enforcement. Both state and federal inspectors

enforce these uniform safety standards, conducting

regular roadside inspections and promptly removing

unsafe

vehicles

or

drivers

from

service.

Complementing these efforts, the Commercial Vehicle

Safety Alliance, a consortium of state, territorial, and

federal safety officials, establishes uniform “Out-ofService” criteria, ensuring consistent nationwide

enforcement and removing any vehicle or driver that

presents an imminent safety hazard. About the

Alliance,

CVSA,

https://www.cvsa.org/aboutcvsa/about-the-alliance/ (last visited July 5, 2025); see

also CVSA’s 2021 Out-of-Service Criteria Now in

Effect, CVSA (Apr. 1, 2021).

12

This regulatory framework is robust and

comprehensive by design. It is specifically tailored to

address motor carrier safety at every level, from

meticulous vehicle maintenance to stringent driver

qualification standards. Allowing common-law tort

claims against freight brokers for their choice of

carrier adds nothing meaningful to these extensive

safety protections. Instead, it improperly imposes

liability on brokers who lack the authority, tools, and

expertise to effectively evaluate and manage carrier

safety.

B. Brokers Lack Reliable Means to

Evaluate Carrier Safety, Rendering a

Negligence Standard Unworkable.

The robust regulatory framework in place for

carriers and operators—the people who drive the

freight across the country as well as those who own

the trucks—helps to ensure safe roads. That

framework includes data systems designed to help law

enforcement prioritize enforcement. The primary

federal safety evaluation system, the Federal Motor

Carrier

Safety

Administration’s

(“FMCSA”)

Compliance, Safety, Accountability (“CSA”) program,

is a law enforcement mechanism designed to prioritize

carriers for agency intervention. Its use by freight

brokers in assessing the relative safety of carriers is

less clear, and there are concerns about the accuracy

and usability of the data. As such, the concept of

imposing tort liability on brokers presents serious

concerns because there is not an effective nationwide

database that presents a clear picture of which

carriers are unsafe to use. Thus, imposing a

negligence standard on brokers would undermine the

efficiency and stability of America’s transportation

infrastructure.

13

1.

The CSA System Is a Law

Enforcement Tool, Not a Safety

Ranking for Brokers.

The CSA program, managed by FMCSA, was

created to support law enforcement and regulatory

oversight, not to guide brokers or shippers in carrier

selection. The program consists of three main

components:

•

The Safety Measurement System (“SMS”), which

analyzes inspection and crash data to identify

carriers needing intervention;

•

A graduated intervention process, including

warnings, investigations, and potential out-ofservice orders; and

•

Safety Fitness Determinations, categorizing

carriers as “satisfactory,” “conditional,” or

“unsatisfactory,” with many carriers receiving no

rating at all. 49 C.F.R. § 385.11.

Critically, these ratings result from comprehensive

onsite investigations typically triggered by serious

incidents or problematic SMS scores. Yet, FMCSA and

state partners annually inspect only a small

percentage, around 3%, of registered carriers. U.S.

Gov’t Accountability Off., GAO-11-858, Motor Carrier

Safety: More Assessment and Transparency Could

Enhance Benefits of New Oversight Program (2011).

Many carriers therefore operate without any

assigned safety rating, and even those with

“satisfactory” ratings may have outdated assessments

that no longer reflect current safety performance.

14

Thus, a “satisfactory” rating does not reliably

indicate a carrier’s comparative safety. FMCSA itself

advises caution against relying solely on CSA ratings

to draw conclusions about carrier safety, underscoring

the system’s fundamental limitations for comparative

analysis. This acknowledgment strongly suggests that

brokers cannot reasonably or responsibly use these

ratings to screen carriers effectively.

2.

Significant Flaws in CSA Data

Undermine Reliability for

Comparative Safety Assessments.

Beyond structural limitations, the CSA’s data

accuracy and predictive value have faced sustained

criticism. The GAO has repeatedly highlighted that

the CSA’s methodologies fail to establish a clear

predictive relationship between recorded violations

and crash risk. Specifically, GAO determined that

many violations used to calculate safety scores do not

occur frequently enough to reliably predict crashes,

calling into question the system’s effectiveness. U.S.

Gov’t Accountability Off., GAO-14-114, Federal Motor

Carrier Safety: Modifying the Compliance, Safety,

Accountability Program Would Improve the Ability to

Identify High Risk Carriers (2014). See also U.S. Gov’t

Accountability Off., GAO-17-132, Motor Carriers:

Establishing System for Self-Reporting Equipment

Problems Appears Feasible, But Safety Benefits

Questionable and Costs Unknown (2016).

Likewise, the DOT’s Inspector General has

consistently criticized FMCSA’s approach, noting

significant issues with the transparency and accuracy

of CSA data. Office of Inspector Gen., U.S. Dep’t of

Transp., Report No. ST2019084, FMCSA’s Plan

Addresses Recommendations on Prioritizing Safety

15

Interventions But Lacks Implementation Details

(2019). The National Academy of Sciences similarly

concluded that the CSA methodology, although wellintentioned, relies heavily on subjective expert

judgment without sufficient empirical validation.

Nat’l Acad. of Scis., Improving Motor Carrier Safety

Measurement (2017). These shortcomings severely

limit the practical usefulness of CSA scores as a tool

for brokers and shippers.

Congress itself recognized the CSA program’s

limitations in the 2015 Fixing America’s Surface

Transportation (“FAST”) Act, mandating FMCSA to

provide explicit warnings to users of the CSA system.

The required notice underscores that conclusions

about a carrier’s overall safety should not be drawn

merely from CSA data unless FMCSA has explicitly

labeled a carrier as “unsatisfactory” and ordered it off

the road. The FAST Act, Pub. L. 114-94, 129 Stat.

1312 (2015).

Indeed, FMCSA withdrew its own proposed

rulemaking to incorporate SMS data directly into

safety fitness determinations due to overwhelming

stakeholder concerns about data reliability. The

agency’s action underscores the inadequacy of CSA

data for accurately assessing carrier safety.

Withdrawal of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Regarding Carrier Safety Fitness Determination, 82

Fed. Reg. 14,848 (Mar. 23, 2017).

Ultimately, the extensive regulatory regime

already places responsibility for road safety precisely

where it belongs—on motor carriers and their drivers.

Imposing a negligence standard on brokers, who have

no reliable means of independently verifying carrier

safety, would be both ineffective and unjust,

16

undermining the efficiency and stability of America’s

transportation infrastructure.

III.

Conflicting Circuit Decisions on Broker

Liability Will Disrupt Commerce, Increase

Costs, and Harm Manufacturers, Retailers,

and Consumers.

Given the central importance of trucking to the

national economy, the circuit split created by the

Ninth Circuit and other courts poses a significant risk

to the efficient movement of goods across state lines.

While the Seventh Circuit correctly recognized that

imposing tort liability on brokers for carrier selection

undermines uniform federal regulation, conflicting

decisions from other jurisdictions threaten to create

precisely the inconsistent legal patchwork Congress

sought to avoid. This uncertainty burdens not just

brokers, but also motor carriers, shippers,

manufacturers, retailers, and ultimately, consumers,

leading to increased costs and decreased efficiency.

Motor Carriers: The trucking industry is vast

and varied, comprising nearly one million motor

carriers, ranging from large fleets operated by

Fortune 100 companies to small businesses and

individual owner-operators. Economics & Industry

Data,

Am.

Trucking

Ass’n,

https://www.trucking.org/economics-and-industrydata (last visited July 5, 2025). Over 95 percent of

these carriers operate fleets of ten trucks or fewer. Id.

Imposing a negligence standard on brokers, who

would then be forced to favor larger carriers with more

established safety records, could push smaller carriers

out of business, reducing market competition and

driving prices upward. Moreover, larger carriers’

safety data averages could mask individual driver and

17

fleet risks, providing a misleading sense of security

and further disadvantaging smaller carriers. See Todd

Dills, Risk & Reward: How CSA’s data shows

discrimination toward small carriers, CCG Digital

(Aug. 6, 2013), https://www.ccjdigital.com/business/

article/14927194/risk-reward-how-csas-data-showsdiscrimination-toward-small-carriers (last visited

July 3, 2025).

Shippers, Manufacturers and Retailers:

Shippers, including manufacturers and retailers, rely

on freight brokers to arrange cost-effective and

efficient transportation. Manufacturers depend on

brokers to source carriers for raw materials and

components. Retailers rely on them to manage

complex delivery logistics, often under just-in-time

systems or drop-shipping models that depend on

rapid, reliable transport.

If the Court declines to resolve the deepening

circuit split, the resulting legal uncertainty will not

simply burden brokers. It will shift liability upstream.

If brokers face open-ended tort exposure for carrier

selection, some may withdraw from certain markets

or sharply limit their operations. The liability will not

disappear. Shippers, who lack regulatory tools and

safety data, will be forced to assume responsibility for

evaluating carrier safety, a task Congress never

intended them to bear. Even those who continue using

brokers will face indirect costs, as brokers pass along

higher risk premiums in the form of increased fees or

more restrictive carrier networks.

The result will be higher shipping costs, reduced

access to competitive carriers, and new legal risks for

parties that have long relied on brokers to navigate

those complexities. These burdens will cut into profit

18

margins, raise

consumers.

prices,

and

ultimately

harm

Consumers: Ultimately, consumers will bear the

brunt of higher shipping and brokerage costs, which

ripple through the economy, increasing prices for

everyday

goods.

Higher

costs

and

fewer

transportation options will lead to delayed deliveries,

negatively impacting consumer satisfaction and

placing strain on an already taxed supply chain.

The Seventh Circuit’s decision underscores the

need for uniformity in interpreting the FAAAA. But

the conflicting rule adopted by the Ninth Circuit

threatens that uniformity and imposes serious

burdens on freight logistics nationwide. Because the

Ninth Circuit covers all major West Coast ports, its

expansive reading of the safety exception would drive

up costs and delay shipments through some of the

country’s most critical trade corridors.

But the effects are not confined to the West Coast.

An Illinois appellate court recently adopted the same

flawed approach as Miller, extending broker liability

under state negligence law in direct conflict with the

Seventh Circuit’s reasoning. See Kaipust v. Echo

Global Logistics, Inc. As more jurisdictions follow suit,

brokers are forced to navigate incompatible

standards, making it impractical to operate regionally

and effectively requiring nationwide adoption of costly

and restrictive carrier selection practices.

In sum, the Seventh Circuit’s approach correctly

preserves the uniform national regulation that

Congress intended. Allowing conflicting circuit court

decisions to persist would significantly impair freight

brokers' ability to function effectively, harming

19

carriers, manufacturers, retailers, and consumers

nationwide. The practical solution is to uphold the

Seventh Circuit’s sound interpretation, maintaining

the intended balance of federal oversight, efficiency,

and road safety.

*

*

*

*

*

Truck freight is a cornerstone of the U.S. economy.

Freight brokers, though largely invisible to the public,

perform a vital function by connecting shippers with

motor carriers and keeping goods moving efficiently.

The Seventh Circuit’s decision preserves that role and

maintains the clear federal–state framework

Congress designed. In contrast, the Ninth Circuit’s

approach upends long-settled expectations, exposing

brokers, and potentially shippers as well, to openended negligence claims. These risks come at a time

when supply chains are being restructured and

onshoring is accelerating, making domestic freight

logistics more essential than ever. Imposing liability

on brokers who lack the tools or authority to evaluate

carrier safety would not improve roadway conditions.

It would only inject uncertainty, raise costs, and

reduce access to safe and timely freight services. The

burden of that disruption would fall on

manufacturers, retailers, and consumers alike,

despite the existence of robust federal and state safety

enforcement systems already in place.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court should

grant the petition and affirm the decision below.

20

Respectfully submitted,

JAMES H. BURNLEY IV

RONALD M. JACOBS

Counsel of Record

CHRISTOPHER L. BOONE

VENABLE LLP

600 Massachusetts

Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20001

(202) 344-8215

RMJacobs@venable.com

Counsel for Amici Curiae

July 2025