The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in two May 14 decisions: one preserves state trucking-broker negligence claims; the other keeps district courts in play after FAA arbitration stays.
The Supreme Court issued two unanimous decisions on May 14, 2026, resolving separate circuit conflicts over the scope of federal preemption in transportation law and the reach of federal court jurisdiction following arbitration stays [1]. The rulings arrived on the same day and address distinct statutory regimes, but each limits what defendants can claim as a shield against further litigation or liability [2].
In the first case, Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II (No. 24-1238), Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for a unanimous Court that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act does not preempt state negligent-hiring tort claims brought against trucking brokers [1]. The FAAAA generally bars states from enforcing laws "related to" the price, route, or service of motor carriers, but the statute contains an express exception for state laws "with respect to" the safety of motor vehicles [2]. The Court held that the negligent-hiring claim at issue fell within that safety exception, preserving the plaintiff's ability to proceed under state law [2]. The decision revives a category of claims that some lower courts had dismissed on preemption grounds, and it exposes freight brokers to a broader range of tort liability arising from carrier accidents [2].
In the second case, Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties (No. 25-83), Justice Sonia Sotomayor held that a district court retains jurisdiction to confirm or vacate an arbitral award under Sections 9 and 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act even after issuing a stay of litigation under FAA Section 3 [1]. Some courts had treated the stay order as stripping the district court of authority to act on the resulting award, forcing parties to file new proceedings to obtain judicial enforcement or review [2]. The Court rejected that reading, holding that the stay mechanism does not extinguish the court's underlying jurisdiction [2].
The practical stakes in both cases are substantial. Montgomery expands the litigation exposure of freight brokers who rely on FAAAA preemption arguments to defeat state-law negligence suits, a defense that lower courts applied inconsistently across circuits [2]. Jules reduces procedural friction in arbitration-adjacent litigation by confirming that the court that issued the stay remains the proper forum for post-award motions, eliminating duplicative filings and potential jurisdictional disputes over which court may act [2].
Both decisions take effect immediately. No remands for further proceedings were ordered on the core legal questions decided, though the underlying cases will return to their respective district courts for proceedings consistent with the Court's instructions [1].