Does the safety exception of the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA) permit negligent-hiring claims against brokers who coordinate shipments in the transportation industry? Specifically, the Court must determine if such claims fall under the state authority to regulate safety "with respect to motor vehicles" under 49 U.S.C. §14501(c)(2)(A). The case involves whether a broker's failure to exercise reasonable care in selecting a motor carrier is preempted by federal law.

Petitioner argues that the safety exception in 49 U.S.C. §14501(c)(2)(A) saves his negligent-hiring claim from federal preemption. He contends that requiring a broker to exercise ordinary care in selecting a carrier is a regulation of safety "with respect to motor vehicles." Petitioner seeks to hold the broker liable for hiring a carrier with a subpar safety rating that was reasonably likely to result in crashes.

Respondent C.H. Robinson argues that the safety exception does not cover brokers and that the claim is expressly preempted by 49 U.S.C. §14501(c)(1). Respondent contends that Petitioner's interpretation creates surplusage and conflicts with 49 U.S.C. §14501(b)(1), which preempts state regulation of brokers for intrastate services without a safety exception. Respondent seeks a ruling that the FAAAA preempts state tort suits against brokers for the negligent selection of motor carriers.

The Court held that the negligent-hiring claim is not preempted because it falls within the FAAAA's safety exception. The Court analyzed 49 U.S.C. §14501(c)(2)(A), which states that preemption "shall not restrict the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles." To interpret "with respect to," the Court applied the ordinary meaning of the phrase as "referring to," "concerning," or "regarding." The Court relied on *Dan’s City Used Cars, Inc. v. Pelkey* to construe "with respect to" as meaning "concerns." The Court then looked to 49 U.S.C. §13102(16), which defines "motor vehicle" as a vehicle, machine, tractor, trailer, or semitrailer used on a highway in transportation. The Court reasoned that requiring a broker to exercise ordinary care in selecting a carrier "concerns" the trucks that will transport the goods. The Court rejected the argument that this interpretation swallows the preemption provision, noting that only claims involving motor vehicle safety are saved. Regarding the