Two Supreme Court Decisions, One Direction for Transportation & Logistics Litigation

Transportation and logistics companies operate at the intersection of contracts, federal regulation, and state law. Two unanimous Supreme Court decisions issued just two weeks apart in May 2026 reinforce a consistent interpretive approach: courts should not read federal statutes to foreclose otherwise viable claims or forums unless Congress has clearly and expressly required that result.

Businesses that use delivery workers, independent distributors, freight brokers, or motor carriers should take a fresh look at their arbitration agreements, carrier-selection practices, and contractual allocation of risk.

Different Statutes, Different Questions

Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC arose from a catastrophic truck accident. The injured driver alleged that freight broker C.H. Robinson negligently selected a carrier with a poor safety record. The broker argued that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act, which broadly prevents states from regulating broker prices, routes, and services, wiped out the state-law claim.

The Supreme Court disagreed. The statute preserves state authority over motor-vehicle safety, and the Court held that requiring a broker to use reasonable care when selecting a trucking company falls within that safety exception. The ruling does not establish that C.H. Robinson was negligent. It means only that federal preemption does not prevent the injured plaintiff from trying to prove his claim in court.[i]

Flowers Foods, Inc. v. Brock addressed a different barrier to litigation: arbitration. Angelo Brock delivered baked goods from a Colorado warehouse to local stores without crossing state lines. When he sued Flowers Foods over alleged wage violations, the company sought to enforce an arbitration clause under the Federal Arbitration Act.

The FAA, however, exempts certain transportation workers engaged in interstate commerce. Flowers Foods argued that Brock could not qualify because he neither crossed a state line nor handled a vehicle that did. The Court rejected that bright-line rule. A worker may participate directly in an interstate journey by completing one entirely local segment of it. The focus is the movement of the goods as a whole, not whether a particular worker personally crosses a border.[ii]

One Case Preserves a Claim; the Other Preserves a Forum

Flowers Foods does not change Montgomery’s legal test, and Montgomery does not expand the FAA’s transportation-worker exemption. The cases involve different statutes, different parties, and different questions.

Their practical effects, however, point in the same direction. Montgomery prevents federal preemption from automatically eliminating certain safety claims against freight brokers. Flowers Foods prevents the FAA from automatically sending certain transportation-worker disputes to private arbitration. One ruling keeps a potential claim alive. The other keeps a potential forum open.

Both decisions also reject arguments built around formal distance from the transportation itself. In Flowers Foods, the worker did not cross the state line. In Montgomery, the broker did not own the truck or employ the driver. The Court looked past those facts and examined each party’s actual role in moving goods: the local driver completed part of an interstate journey, while the broker chose the carrier that placed the truck on the road.

A Broader Trend

Flowers Foods is part of a longer series of Supreme Court decisions declining to narrow the FAA’s transportation-worker exemption. Since 2019, the Court has held that the exemption can cover independent contractors, workers who load interstate cargo without traveling across state lines, and transportation workers employed outside the transportation industry.[iii] Flowers Foods extends that trajectory to last-mile and other intrastate delivery work when the worker participates in a continuous interstate movement of goods.

Florida will feel both rulings directly. Flowers Foods and the Court’s earlier decision in Bissonnette undercut the restrictive test previously used by the Eleventh Circuit in Hamrick v. Partsfleet. Montgomery, meanwhile, displaces the Eleventh Circuit’s conclusion in Aspen American Insurance Co. v. Landstar Ranger that broker-selection negligence claims fell outside the FAAAA’s safety exception.[iv]

The decisions are not unlimited. Flowers Foods does not exempt every local delivery worker from the FAA. Courts must still determine whether the goods remain in a continuous interstate journey or have already reached their destination and begun a separate local transaction. Montgomery likewise does not make every broker liable for every accident. A plaintiff must still prove the elements of negligence.

The message for the transportation industry is nevertheless clear: labels and contractual structure will not necessarily determine whether a dispute reaches court. Companies should review arbitration provisions, state-law alternatives, carrier-vetting procedures, insurance requirements, indemnity clauses, and recordkeeping practices with these decisions in mind.

Our attorneys help businesses strengthen transportation and distribution agreements, evaluate carrier-selection and risk-management practices, and manage claims and litigation when disputes arise. Early review can help identify gaps before they become the focus of a lawsuit.

___________________________________________________

[i] Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, 608 U.S. ___, slip op. at 1, 6–7 (2026); 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(1)–(2)(A).
[ii] Flowers Foods, Inc. v. Brock, 608 U.S. ___, slip op. at 3–8 (2026); 9 U.S.C. § 1.
[iii] New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira, 586 U.S. 105, 116 (2019); Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon, 596 U.S. 450, 458–61 (2022); Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC, 601 U.S. 246, 256 (2024).
[iv] Hamrick v. Partsfleet, LLC, 1 F.4th 1337, 1345–46 (11th Cir. 2021); Aspen American Insurance Co. v. Landstar Ranger, Inc., 65 F.4th 1261, 1271–72 (11th Cir. 2023), abrogated by Montgomery, 608 U.S. ___ (2026).