SCOTUS
Flowers Foods Inc. v. Brock
DecidedMay 28, 2026
9-0decision
Source: CourtListener.
Workers delivering goods on intrastate routes can be exempt from forced arbitration under the FAA
Impact5/10
What it does
The Court held that a worker who transports goods on a purely intrastate (within one state) leg of a larger interstate journey can qualify for the FAA's Section 1 exemption from mandatory arbitration. A worker does not need to personally cross state lines or physically handle vehicles that cross state lines to be considered "engaged in interstate commerce." This ruling rejects a proposed bright-line rule that would have required either of those two conditions to be met.
Who benefits
Workers — including independent contractors and franchisee distributors — who handle goods on local delivery routes that form part of a larger interstate shipping chain, and who want to bring workplace disputes to court rather than arbitration.
Who is affected
Companies that use distribution agreements with local delivery workers or franchisees, and that rely on mandatory arbitration clauses in those agreements to resolve disputes outside of court.
Practical impact
Local delivery workers and franchisee distributors whose routes are part of a broader interstate supply chain can now invoke the FAA's Section 1 exemption to avoid being forced into arbitration, even if their own routes never leave a single state. Companies that distribute goods through local franchisees or independent contractors will face greater difficulty enforcing mandatory arbitration clauses against those workers. Open questions remain — such as whether the exemption applies when a worker owns an independent business entity or takes title to the goods — and those will need to be resolved in future cases.
Majority reasoning
The majority held that the plain text of Section 1 does not require a worker to cross state lines or touch vehicles that do. The Court reasoned that when the FAA was enacted, "engaged in interstate commerce" meant taking an active, direct, and necessary part in moving goods between states — and that an intrastate delivery leg can be exactly that, since a continuous interstate journey necessarily includes portions that occur entirely within a single state. The Court drew on a 150-year-old precedent, The Daniel Ball (1871), in which the Court had already held that a vessel operating entirely within Michigan was still "engaged in commerce between the States" because it carried goods destined for other states. The majority illustrated the point with a hypothetical involving three drivers splitting a cross-state delivery: under Flowers's proposed rule, only the driver who briefly crossed the state line would qualify, while the drivers handling the bulk of the journey on either side would not — a result the Court found plainly inconsistent with the statute's text and history. The Court also noted that Flowers raised other possible arguments for why Brock specifically might not qualify (such as the fact that he owns an independent company and takes title to the goods he delivers), but because Flowers chose to stake its entire case on the cross-state-lines rule alone, the Court declined to address those other questions.
Constitutional question
Does a worker qualify for the Federal Arbitration Act's Section 1 exemption — which bars courts from forcing arbitration for workers "engaged in interstate commerce" — even if he never crosses state lines and never handles vehicles that do?
Precedent changed
Extends Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon, 596 U.S. 450 (2022), which held that workers need not cross state lines themselves to qualify for the Section 1 exemption, by further clarifying that workers also need not interact with vehicles that cross state lines.