FMCSA Deputy Says Montgomery Ruling Puts Broker Activity in Agency Purview

What does the Montgomery ruling change for FMCSA's authority over brokers?

FMCSA deputy administrator Jesse Elison said the Supreme Court's Montgomery decision classifies broker activity as part of motor-vehicle operations, bringing it within the agency's purview, though FMCSA still lacks direct safety authority over brokers. Speaking at FreightWaves' Freight Fraud Symposium in Cleveland on May 20, Elison acknowledged the contradiction: "We don't have safety authority over brokers," he said, then added, "What's changed is that clearly the activity of a broker is now considered part of a motor vehicle, and that is within our purview."

The Montgomery case, decided the week before the symposium, eliminated the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (F4A) safety-exception defense that brokers had relied on to shield themselves from liability when a hired carrier caused a crash. A body of prior court rulings had supported that defense. Montgomery ends it.

What brokers lost in the ruling

Brokers had operated under two liability defenses. The first was the F4A safety exception, now gone. The second was the assumption that booking a carrier without red flags in FMCSA records constituted reasonable due diligence. Montgomery undermines that second defense by expanding the scope of what courts may consider negligent broker conduct.

Elison's remarks suggest FMCSA is still working out what the ruling means operationally. The agency's existing authorities, audits, operating-authority revocation, data-quality enforcement, remain unchanged. But if broker hiring decisions are now "motor vehicle" activity under the F4A, the legal boundary between FMCSA's jurisdiction and its lack of direct broker safety authority has blurred.

What FMCSA can and cannot do

FMCSA can revoke a broker's operating authority for fraud or failure to maintain a surety bond. It can audit broker records for compliance with transaction documentation rules. It cannot issue safety ratings to brokers, conduct compliance reviews of broker hiring practices, or mandate broker-specific safety programs the way it does for motor carriers.

The court's ruling in Montgomery held that the phrase "with respect to motor vehicles" in the F4A safety exception applies to broker activity when that activity involves selecting and contracting with carriers. That interpretation opens brokers to state-law negligence claims: claims that previously would have been preempted by federal law.

What changes for small fleets

Small fleets with clean CSA scores and higher insurance limits may see increased demand from brokers seeking to reduce post-Montgomery liability exposure. Brokers can no longer rely solely on the absence of FMCSA red flags as a legal safe harbor. That shifts the calculus toward carriers with demonstrable safety records, stable insurance, and verifiable maintenance programs.

Fleets that maintain detailed service records, pass roadside inspections consistently, and carry insurance above the $750,000 federal minimum may find themselves preferred over cheaper competitors with thinner documentation. The ruling does not change carrier liability or insurance requirements, those remain the same, but it changes how brokers evaluate risk when choosing which carriers to book.

What FMCSA may do next

Elison did not announce new rulemaking or enforcement priorities at the Cleveland event. The agency's next steps will depend on how lower courts interpret Montgomery in subsequent broker-liability cases and whether Congress directs FMCSA to expand its broker oversight through legislation.

FMCSA's current broker regulations focus on financial responsibility (the $75,000 surety bond) and transaction transparency (the requirement to provide carrier identity on request). The agency has no authority to audit broker vetting procedures, set standards for carrier selection, or penalize brokers for hiring carriers that later cause crashes: even if those carriers had no FMCSA violations at the time of hire.

If broker activity is now "motor vehicle" activity under the F4A, that legal classification may eventually support expanded FMCSA rulemaking authority. But any such expansion would require either a new statutory grant from Congress or a reinterpretation of existing FMCSA enabling statutes: a process that typically takes years.

What this means for shop supervisors and fleet managers

Maintenance documentation and inspection pass rates now carry indirect commercial value beyond compliance. Brokers facing expanded liability will increasingly ask for proof of preventive-maintenance schedules, annual inspection results, and driver qualification files before tendering loads. Fleets that can produce those records quickly, and demonstrate consistent equipment upkeep, will have a competitive edge in a post-Montgomery market.

The ruling does not change what FMCSA requires of carriers. It changes what brokers will require of carriers to protect themselves from negligence claims. That gap, between federal compliance minimums and broker due-diligence expectations, is where small fleets can differentiate on safety performance rather than price alone.