The Supreme Court has delivered a significant blow to corporate immunity, allowing an individual citizen to pursue justice against C.H. Robinson, the nation's largest freight broker, after a life-altering truck crash. This unanimous decision rejects the push by powerful logistics companies and the former Trump administration to shield corporations from accountability under state laws, affirming the right of states to protect their citizens from corporate negligence.
Shawn Montgomery, who lost part of his leg in a semi tractor-trailer crash in 2017, can now sue C.H. Robinson. The crash occurred when Montgomery's parked vehicle was hit by a speeding truck driver on an Illinois highway, now in its ninth year since the incident. Montgomery alleges that C.H. Robinson bears responsibility for placing the driver on the road despite what he described as “serious red flags.”
Reclaiming State Sovereignty
C.H. Robinson, along with the Trump administration and corporate giants such as Amazon, had argued that allowing such a lawsuit would expose logistics companies to liability under a “patchwork” of state laws. They contended that federal law should trump state law, asserting that brokers rely on the federal government to regulate carriers.
However, in an opinion authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the Supreme Court disagreed. The high court found that Montgomery’s claims could proceed because they fall under an exception for safety regulations, overturning a lower-court ruling that had favored the company. This ruling underscores the ability of states to enforce safety standards against powerful, interconnected logistics operations.
More than two dozen states had backed Montgomery’s appeal, arguing that a victory for him would bolster safety within an industry responsible for moving billions of tons of goods across billions of miles annually. This collective action by states highlights a decentralized pushback against attempts to centralize regulatory power and reduce local accountability.
The Cost to the People
The Transportation Intermediaries Association (TIA), an industry group, called the Supreme Court’s decision “deeply disappointing.” Chris Burroughs, the president and CEO of TIA, stated, “This is like asking travel agents to evaluate the safety of a given airline despite the fact that the airline has been licensed to fly by the federal government.” He added that the association is “working with our members to assess potential next steps to mitigate the consequences of the Supreme Court’s decision,” indicating ongoing efforts to shape policy in favor of corporate interests.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in a concurrence joined by Justice Samuel Alito, acknowledged that the decision could increase insurance costs for freight brokers, which might eventually “cascade through the economy” and result in higher prices for consumers. This argument, often presented by corporate interests, frames the cost of increased accountability as a burden on the working class, rather than a necessary expense for ensuring public safety.
Brian Watt, who operates a freight logistics company in Florida, noted that the ruling could have far-reaching effects, compelling brokers to focus more on the safety records of contracted truckers instead of merely seeking the cheapest and fastest options. Watt highlighted a significant regulatory void, stating in a LinkedIn post that “More than 28,000 federally licensed brokers currently operate in the United States with virtually no meaningful federal safety oversight regarding how they select carriers.” He contrasted this with tougher standards for shipments out of ports and on railroads, pointing to fewer restrictions for highway shipments.
Elite Interests Exposed
C.H. Robinson, based in Eden Prairie, Minnesota, emphasized another part of Justice Kavanaugh’s concurrence, which suggested that the decision does not mean brokers will be “routinely subject” to lawsuits. Dorothy Capers, the company’s chief legal officer, affirmed, “We will keep working with policymakers, advocates, carriers, our customers, and others across the industry to strengthen the national safety system and advance practices that reduce accidents on America’s roads.” This statement signals continued engagement with political and industry figures to influence regulatory frameworks.
The Transportation Department has recently increased its scrutiny of the trucking industry, attempting to remove unqualified drivers, trucking companies, and schools from the sector. This federal action, while seemingly beneficial, operates within a system where corporate lobbying often seeks to minimize oversight and liability, as evidenced by the industry’s reaction to the Supreme Court’s ruling.