Opinion Summary: Flower Foods, Inc. v. Brock | Interstate Worker, Not Local Laborer

Flowers Foods, Inc. v. Brock | Case No. 24-935 | Argued: 3/25/26 | Decided: May 28, 2026 | Docket Link: Here

Overview: The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that last-mile delivery workers who never cross state lines still qualify for the Federal Arbitration Act's exemption from mandatory arbitration if their intrastate routes form part of a continuous interstate journey.

Question Presented: Whether a worker qualifies for the FAA's Section 1 arbitration exemption without crossing state lines or interacting with interstate vehicles.

Posture: District court denied arbitration; Tenth Circuit affirmed; Supreme Court granted cert.

Main Arguments:

• Flowers Foods (Petitioner): (1) Section 1 requires workers to cross state lines or interact with interstate vehicles; (2) Brock's purely intrastate route falls outside Congress's intended scope of the exemption; (3) Extending Section 1 to intrastate-only workers produces an unworkable, open-ended standard.
• Brock (Respondent): (1) Statutory text "engaged in interstate commerce" covers workers on intrastate legs of continuous interstate journeys; (2) Historical Commerce Clause precedent confirms intrastate actors participate in interstate commerce; (3) The Court's own precedent in Saxon already rejected a crossing-state-lines requirement.

Holding: The Federal Arbitration Act’s exemption from compelled arbitration for workers “engaged in . . . interstate commerce,” 9 U. S. C. §1, can apply to a worker who transports goods on an intrastate leg of an interstate journey and who does not cross state lines or interact with vehicles that do.

Voting Breakdown: 9-0. Justice Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson. No concurrences. No dissents. Tenth Circuit judgment affirmed.

Opinion: Here

Majority Reasoning: (1) The 1925-era plain meaning of "engaged in interstate commerce" encompasses intrastate legs of continuous interstate journeys — nothing in the text requires crossing state lines or tagging interstate vehicles; (2) The Daniel Ball (1871) and a line of Commerce Clause cases confirm that purely intrastate actors participate in interstate commerce when moving goods within a continuous multi-state shipment; (3) Flowers Foods waived alternative arguments — including independent-contractor status and title transfer — by staking its entire case on the rejected cross-or-tag rule.

Separate Opinions: None.

Implications:

• Last-mile delivery drivers, food distributors, and local couriers whose routes remain within a single state now hold stronger claims to Section 1 protection — blocking companies from compelling arbitration and reopening access to class action litigation.
• Companies relying on arbitration clauses in franchisee and distributor agreements face exposure on wage claims.
• Two questions remain open: whether Section 1 covers workers operating through independently owned business entities, and whether taking title to goods defeats the exemption — issues currently splitting the circuits.

The Fine Print:

• Federal Arbitration Act § 1, 9 U.S.C. § 1: "nothing herein contained shall apply to contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce"
• Black's Law Dictionary (3d ed. 1933) defining "interstate commerce": "[t]raffic, intercourse, or the transportation of persons or property between or among the several states of the Union, or from or between points in one state and points in another state"

Primary Cases:

• Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon (2022): An airline cargo loader who never flew or crossed state lines still qualified as a transportation worker "engaged in interstate commerce" under FAA Section 1.
• The Daniel Ball, 10 Wall. 557 (1871): A steamer operating entirely within Michigan still "engaged in commerce between the States" because it transported goods destined for or arriving from other states — multiple intrastate actors can collectively form one interstate transaction.

Oral Advocates:

• For Petitioner (Flowers Food): Traci L. Lovett of Jones Day
• For Respondent (Brock): Jennifer Bennett of Gupta Wessler