Case Preview: Flower Foods, Inc. v. Brock | Interstate Worker or Local Laborer?
About this episode
Flower Foods, Inc. v. Brock | Case No. 24-935 | Docket Link: Here | Argument: 3/25/26
Question Presented: Whether last-mile delivery drivers who never cross state lines qualify as transportation workers "engaged in interstate commerce" under FAA Section 1.
Overview: Flowers Foods required its Colorado bread delivery driver, Angelo Brock, to arbitrate wage disputes. Brock never crossed a state line. The Court must decide whether the 1925 FAA's transportation worker exemption covers last-mile drivers.
Posture: D. Colo. denied arbitration; Tenth Circuit affirmed; four-circuit split prompted cert grant.
Main Arguments:
Flowers Foods (Petitioner):
- (1) Section 1 covers only workers who directly and actively move goods across state or international borders;
- (2) historical 1925 labor schemes excluded purely local intrastate workers;
- (3) the Tenth Circuit's multi-factor test turns simple arbitration threshold questions into costly mini-trials
Angelo Brock (Respondent):
- (1) century of Supreme Court precedent defined last-mile workers finishing an interstate goods journey as "engaged in interstate commerce";
- (2) seamen and railroad employees in 1925 included last-mile workers who never crossed a border;
- (3) Flowers argued its last-mile drivers qualify as interstate workers under the Motor Carrier Act — and won — directly contradicting its position here
Implications: A Flowers win strips court access from last-mile drivers at FedEx, UPS, Amazon Logistics, and the U.S. Postal Service — forcing employment disputes into private arbitration and shielding company labor practices from judicial review. A Brock win preserves court access for workers serving more than 170 million delivery addresses and anchors a century of interstate commerce precedent in the modern gig economy.
The Fine Print:
- 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"
- 9 U.S.C. § 2: "A written provision in any...contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy...shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable"
Primary Cases:
- Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon (2022): Transportation workers must play a direct and necessary role in the free flow of goods across borders to qualify for the FAA Section 1 exemption
- Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC (2024): Transportation workers need not work for a transportation industry company to qualify for Section 1, but must actively engage in transporting goods across borders
Get every episode summarized
Each time The High Court Report publishes, we email you a written briefing from the transcript — the topics, who appeared, and any specific claims, with the ad reads skipped.
Email me new episodesFree for 3 shows. No card needed.
Hosts & guests
No transcript yet
This episode has not been transcribed. Request it and it moves to the front of the queue.
More episodes
More from The High Court Report
Opinion Summary: Monsanto v. Durnell | Court Axes Roundup Cancer Suits
The High Court Report
Opinion Summary: Mullin v. Doe | No Judge. No TPS. No Way Back.
The High Court Report
New Opinions: June 30th | 3 Blockbusters End the Term
The High Court Report
Opinion Summary: Mullin v. Al Otro Lado | The Inch That Changed Immigration Law
The High Court Report