A run of transportation lawsuits between 2024 and 2026 changed the rules for who can sue transit agencies, who can be sued alongside a trucking company, and what the federal government can do with transit money it has already promised. The U.S. Supreme Court stripped New Jersey Transit of the sovereign immunity it had used to dodge out-of-state cases, opened freight brokers to state negligence claims, and lower courts forced billions in frozen transit grants back into motion. Settlements and class actions filled in the rest, tightening disability access rules for airport shuttles and pushing school transportation for children with disabilities toward federal oversight.
Here is what each of those cases actually decided, and what changed because of it.
NJ Transit Can Be Sued in Other States
On March 4, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corporation that NJ Transit is not an “arm of the state” and cannot claim sovereign immunity to block lawsuits filed against it in other states.1SCOTUSblog. Supreme Court Rules That New Jersey Transit Can Be Sued in Other States
The case grew out of two bus accidents. In 2017, Jeffrey Colt was struck by an NJ Transit bus in Manhattan, and New York’s highest court let his suit proceed. A year later, Cedric Galette was hit by an NJ Transit bus in Pennsylvania, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court dismissed his case on immunity grounds. The U.S. Supreme Court consolidated the appeals.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for the court, rejected the multi-factor tests lower courts had been applying and focused on a simpler question: did the state structure the entity as a legally separate corporation? New Jersey created NJ Transit as a “body corporate and politic” with the power to sue and be sued, hold property, enter contracts, and take on debt. State law says New Jersey is not liable for the agency’s debts and requires NJ Transit to “exercise independent judgment” separate from the state transportation department.2Supreme Court of the United States. Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corp., 607 U.S. ___ (2026) That was enough.
Sotomayor called any effort at “gauging actual control” over a state-created entity “perilous” and “unreliable” because the state retains ultimate authority over all its creations. She also refused to let a state’s chosen label be dispositive: New Jersey calls NJ Transit an “instrumentality of the State,” and that label did not carry the day.3Constitution Annotated, Congress.gov. Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corporation
The ruling reaches well beyond one agency. Transit corporations across the country that are structured as independent, self-liable entities can no longer use sovereign immunity to block suits in states where their vehicles operate. For anyone injured by a transit bus that crosses a state line, the courthouse door in the state where the crash happened stays open.
Freight Brokers Can Be Sued for Negligent Hiring
On May 14, 2026, the Supreme Court unanimously held in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act does not shield freight brokers from state-law negligence claims when they hire unsafe carriers.4SCOTUSblog. Court Rules Freight Brokers Can Face Negligent-Hiring Suits Under State Law
The plaintiff, Shawn Montgomery, lost his leg after a tractor-trailer operated by Caribe Transport II rear-ended his car on Interstate 70 in Illinois in December 2017. The load had been arranged by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, one of the country’s largest freight brokers. Montgomery alleged the broker negligently hired Caribe despite the carrier’s “conditional” federal safety rating flagging problems with driver qualifications, hours of service, and crash rates.
Federal appeals courts had split on whether the FAAAA preempted claims like his. The Seventh and Eleventh Circuits said yes; the Sixth and Ninth said no.5Cornell Law Institute. Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, No. 24-1238 Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the court, resolved the split by pointing to the statute’s safety exception. The FAAAA preempts state laws related to broker “prices, routes, and services,” but it explicitly preserves state “safety regulatory authority…with respect to motor vehicles.” A negligent-hiring claim, Barrett wrote, concerns the specific trucks used to move a shipment, so it falls within that exception.6Supreme Court of the United States. Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, No. 24-1238 She acknowledged the statute contains “mysteries” but concluded it would be “even odder” to read the exception out of the provision where Congress put it. Justice Kavanaugh, joined by Justice Alito, concurred but called the case “closer” than the majority suggested.
Brokers who select carriers with known safety problems can now be sued for negligence under state law nationwide. Industry groups have warned the ruling will raise insurance and litigation costs that may filter into consumer prices.7New Orleans CityBusiness. SCOTUS Freight Broker Lawsuit Ruling
Courts Push Back on Frozen Federal Transit Funding
Two overlapping lawsuits in 2025 and 2026 tested whether the federal government could pause or condition transit money that had already been committed. Both produced rulings that put the funds back into play.
Chicago Transit Authority v. USDOT
On March 20, 2026, the Chicago Transit Authority sued the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Federal Transit Administration in the Northern District of Illinois, challenging the freeze of roughly $2.1 billion for two rail projects: the 5.3-mile Red Line Extension and the Red and Purple Line Modernization, a rebuild of 9.6 miles of century-old North Side infrastructure.8Chicago Transit Authority. Chicago Transit Authority Sues Federal Government Over Paused Red Line Extension and Red and Purple Modernization Project Funding Both projects were covered by signed Full Funding Grant Agreements, with the Red Line Extension agreement finalized on January 10, 2025.
On October 3, 2025, the White House Office of Management and Budget paused the funding and the FTA opened a review. The administration said it was investigating whether the Red Line Extension involved “race-based contracting,” specifically the CTA’s Diversity Outreach Plan, which reportedly gave bidders scoring bonuses of up to 25% for diversity commitments.9Engineering News-Record. CTA Faces Imminent Rail Work Stoppages as $2.1B Transit Funding Freeze Heads to Court The CTA submitted over 1,000 pages of documentation in October 2025 and more records in December, then, according to its complaint, heard nothing back.10NBC Chicago. Chicago Transit Authority Lawsuit Targets Halted Federal Construction Funding
Four days after the suit was filed, Judge Thomas M. Durkin granted a temporary restraining order. On March 24, 2026, he ruled the funding suspension “impermissible” and ordered the federal government to resume payment processing by 10 a.m. on March 27.11Chicago Transit Authority. Court Grants CTA Temporary Restraining Order Directs Federal Government to Resume Funding The court extended the TRO on April 9 pending a preliminary injunction hearing set for July 28, 2026. As of mid-June 2026, briefing on the injunction and on a government motion to dismiss was still underway.12Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. Chicago Transit Authority v. United States Department of Transportation
King County v. Turner
A broader challenge, King County v. Turner, brought together more than 60 cities, counties, and transit agencies, including the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority, the San Francisco County Transportation Authority, New York City, Boston, and Columbus.13Public Rights Project. 60 Local Governments Nationwide Sue to Stop Trump Administration’s Extreme Attack on Housing, Transit, and Health Funding They challenged new conditions the Trump administration sought to impose on federal grants, including transportation funding. A federal judge in Washington state granted a temporary restraining order on May 7, 2025, followed by preliminary injunctions in June and August 2025 protecting more than $4 billion in funding, and a third preliminary injunction in January 2026.14Public Rights Project. King County v. Turner
The pattern in both cases: courts declined to let the federal government rewrite the terms of grants that had already been agreed to, and blocked the freezes while the underlying merits played out.
Disability Access in Ground Transportation
Two cases forced ground transportation providers to answer for how they treat passengers with disabilities.
SuperShuttle Class Settlement
In May 2025, three Bay Area residents—Jan Garrett, Kathi Pugh, and Dorene Giacopini—filed a class action in Oakland alleging that SuperShuttle Express advertised wheelchair-accessible vehicles but routinely told customers none were available. The suit was brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act by Disability Rights Advocates.15Airport Improvement Magazine. Settlement With Leading Airport Transportation Shuttle Company to Improve Access for Wheelchair Users
On June 11, 2026, the court approved a settlement that seeks no money damages. Instead, SuperShuttle must make wheelchair-accessible vehicles available in all service areas and during all hours that standard transport operates, at the same cost and with the same convenience. Within six months of court approval, affiliates must provide accessible vehicles at every airport they serve with no more than 72 hours’ advance notice required. Operators must complete specialized securement training within four months, and customer service staff must complete disability-etiquette and scheduling training within two months.16Disability Rights Advocates. Garrett v. WHC Worldwide The company must file regular compliance reports with plaintiffs’ counsel, and the case remains in monitoring.17Disability Rights Advocates. Garrett v. WHC Worldwide Class Notice
D.C. School Bus Class Action
In March 2024, a group of D.C. parents and The Arc of the United States filed a class action against the District’s Office of the State Superintendent for Education. The complaints were specific: one student was late to school 90 times in a single year; buses failed to arrive at all; children were stranded at school or left on buses for excessive periods without access to medical care or restrooms.18Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless. Parents and Students With Disabilities Fight for Safe and Reliable Transportation in Federal Court The suit invokes both the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and the ADA.19Washington Post. Lawsuit D.C. Students Disabilities School Bus
On January 21, 2025, Judge Paul L. Friedman denied most of the District’s motion to dismiss. He ruled that students with disabilities may seek “structural relief that serves all children with disabilities,” rejected a heightened pleading standard for education discrimination claims, and found that The Arc has standing to sue on behalf of its members. As of mid-2026 the case is in discovery.20Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless. Parents and Students With Disabilities Can Continue Their Fight for Safe and Reliable Transportation in Federal Court
Nuclear Verdicts and the Trucking Reform Push
The trucking industry has faced a parallel shift, though driven by juries rather than judges. Research from the American Transportation Research Institute found that the average verdict over $1 million against trucking firms rose 867% between 2010 and 2018, even as fatal truck crash rates declined over the same period.21Institute for Legal Reform. Roadblock: The Trucking Litigation Problem and How to Fix It A December 2025 ATRI analysis estimated 12,817 state truck-tractor tort cases in 2022 alone, with the largest half of awards growing at an average annual rate of 5.7%.22American Transportation Research Institute. New ATRI Research Expands Insights on the Scale and Causes of Growing Trucking Litigation
In September 2025, Representatives Tom Barrett and Ashley Hinson introduced the FAIR Trucking Act, which would route large interstate trucking accident cases into federal court when the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million and the parties are from different states. The American Trucking Associations endorsed the bill, arguing that nuclear verdicts are driving up insurance rates and threatening small carriers that make up more than 90% of the industry. As of mid-2026, the bill has not advanced beyond its introduction in the House.23Office of Congressman Tom Barrett. Barrett, Hinson Introduce Bill to Protect Truckers From Weaponized Litigation For now, the rules that reshaped trucking litigation are being written by verdicts, not statutes.