On May 28, 2026, the United States Supreme Court delivered a unanimous decision in Flowers Foods, Inc. v. Brock that significantly expanded the reach of the Federal Arbitration Act’s transportation worker exemption. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch authored the eight-page opinion affirming the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling that local delivery drivers who never cross state lines can still qualify for the statutory exemption from mandatory arbitration.

The case centered on Angelo Brock, a Denver-based delivery franchisee who purchased distribution rights to baked goods produced by Flowers Foods, Inc. Brock picked up products from a Colorado warehouse and delivered them to local stores entirely within state boundaries, yet the Court determined he remained engaged in interstate commerce for purposes of Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act.

This ruling marked the fourth time in recent years that the Supreme Court has rejected efforts to narrow the transportation worker exemption, following New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira (2019), Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon (2022), and Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park Street, LLC (2024).

How the Tenth Circuit Framed the Interstate Commerce Question

Angelo Brock filed a putative class and collective action in Colorado federal district court in 2022, alleging Flowers Foods had underpaid its franchisees in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and state wage laws. Flowers Foods moved to compel arbitration based on provisions in the distribution agreement Brock had signed with the company.

The district court denied the motion, concluding that Brock fell within the transportation worker exemption under 9 U.S.C. Section 1. That provision exempts from the Federal Arbitration Act any “contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.”

The Tenth Circuit affirmed this decision in Brock v. Flowers Foods, Inc., 121 F. 4th 753 (10th Cir. 2024), reasoning that Brock’s intrastate delivery route “formed a constituent part of the interstate journey” of Flowers Foods’ products. The baked goods originated at out-of-state bakeries in 19 different states before reaching the Colorado warehouse where Brock collected them.

Flowers Foods petitioned for certiorari, asking the Supreme Court to establish whether a worker must cross state lines or interact with vehicles that do in order to qualify for Section 1’s exemption. The Court granted review in 2025 and heard oral arguments earlier this year.

Gorsuch Opinion Rejects Bright-Line State-Crossing Test

Justice Gorsuch’s unanimous opinion directly rejected Flowers Foods’ proposed bright-line rule requiring workers to physically cross state boundaries or handle vehicles engaged in interstate transport. The Court grounded its analysis in the statutory text of Section 1, examining historical definitions from legal dictionaries contemporary to the 1925 enactment of the Federal Arbitration Act.

According to Black’s Law Dictionary (3d ed. 1933), to ‘engage’ meant to ‘take part in’ something or to be ’employ[ed]’ or ‘involve[d]’ in that activity. The term ‘interstate commerce’ was defined as ‘traffic,’ ‘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.”

The Court found nothing in these definitions requiring an individual to cross state lines personally. Interstate commerce necessarily includes intrastate activity when a ‘continuous carriage’ begins in one state and ends in another, even though ‘much of the journey’ occurs ‘within the limits of a single state.’

Justice Gorsuch used a hypothetical involving three drivers transporting Butterscotch Krimpets from a bakery in State B to a customer headquarters in State A. Driver 1 transports the goods to the state border. Driver 2 crosses the border carrying the goods ten feet into State A. Driver 3 completes the delivery to the final destination. Under Flowers Foods’ theory, only Driver 2 would qualify for the exemption, yet all three played direct and necessary roles in the interstate journey.

Nineteenth-Century Precedent Supports Intrastate Workers

The Supreme Court anchored its textual analysis in more than 150 years of Commerce Clause precedent interpreting nearly identical language. In The Daniel Ball, 10 Wall. 557 (1871), the Court held that a steamer operating entirely within Michigan was ‘engaged in commerce between the States’ because it transported goods “destined for other States, or goods brought from without the limits of Michigan.”

The Daniel Ball court emphasized that “the fact that several different and independent agencies are employed in transporting the commodity, some acting entirely in one State, and some acting through two or more States, does in no respect affect the character of the transaction.” This principle directly supported Brock’s position that his intrastate delivery work constituted engagement in interstate commerce.

Additional historical cases reinforced this interpretation. In Rearick v. Pennsylvania, 203 U.S. 507 (1906), the Court held that a Pennsylvania salesman who picked up out-of-state goods and delivered them to final destinations was ‘engaged in interstate commerce’ without any indication he left Pennsylvania or touched interstate vehicles. Similarly, Rhodes v. Iowa, 170 U.S. 412 (1898), found that a railroad agent moving packages from a train platform to a freight warehouse entirely within one state could be “part of interstate commerce transportation.”

Flowers Foods argued these cases involved constitutional Commerce Clause interpretation rather than the Federal Arbitration Act itself. Justice Gorsuch acknowledged the scope of Section 1 is not necessarily coterminous with the Commerce Clause as interpreted in 1925, noting the FAA exempts only “contracts of employment of transportation workers’ and uses the phrase ‘engaged in’ rather than broader terms like ‘affecting’ or ‘involving” interstate commerce.

However, the Court found cases using identical or very similar language to Section 1 offered “probative evidence of what an ordinary person at the time of the FAA’s enactment would have understood its terms to mean.” This interpretive approach has become central to several Supreme Court cases examining historical statutory meaning.

Winners and Losers in the Arbitration Landscape

The decision represents a clear victory for transportation and delivery workers seeking to pursue class and collective actions in federal court rather than individual arbitration. Last-mile delivery drivers, warehouse workers, and logistics personnel now have substantially broader protection from arbitration agreements than employers anticipated.

Companies employing delivery drivers face significant new litigation exposure. The logistics industry, particularly businesses using independent contractor distribution models similar to Flowers Foods, will find it much harder to compel arbitration in wage-and-hour disputes. This applies to food delivery services, package couriers, and any business model involving local delivery of interstate goods.

Labor advocacy organizations gained substantial ground in their efforts to preserve class action litigation as a tool for workers’ rights enforcement. The unanimous nature of the decision, authored by a conservative justice, demonstrates the Court’s commitment to broad interpretation of the transportation worker exemption regardless of ideological orientation.

Flowers Foods and similar employers lost their primary defense strategy in class action litigation. Arbitration agreements have historically been crucial tools for limiting litigation exposure by forcing individual dispute resolution. Without the ability to compel arbitration for large categories of workers, companies face the prospect of defending multi-plaintiff lawsuits with potentially massive financial exposure.

Unresolved Questions About Contract Structure and Title Transfer

Justice Gorsuch’s opinion explicitly acknowledged several issues Flowers Foods raised but declined to resolve. The company argued its business relationship with Brock involved a distribution agreement with an ‘independently operated company’ Brock owned, not a traditional employment contract. Some lower courts have found this corporate structure relevant when determining whether a ‘contract of employment’ exists under Section 1.

The Ninth Circuit held in Fli-Lo Falcon, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., 97 F. 4th 1190 (CA9 2024), that Section 1 does not apply to contracts ‘between two business entities.’ Conversely, the Second Circuit found in Silva v. Schmidt Baking Distribution, LLC, 162 F. 4th 354 (CA2 2025), that the exemption can apply to agreements with ‘single-employee corporations.’

Flowers Foods also emphasized that Brock orders, purchases, and takes title to the company’s goods before selling them to local stores. Courts have split on whether this ownership transfer affects interstate commerce analysis. The Ninth Circuit in Rittmann v. Amazon.com, Inc., 971 F. 3d 904 (CA9 2020), focused on whether products reached their ‘intended destination’ under an interstate contract.

The Supreme Court acknowledged these arguments but refused to address their legal significance. Justice Gorsuch wrote that “while Flowers discusses these facts in passing, it does not ask us to decide their legal significance.’ Instead, Flowers Foods ‘ventures all upon one cast,” seeking only the bright-line state-crossing rule the Court rejected.

This strategic decision by Flowers Foods to pursue a single argument rather than presenting alternative grounds for reversal proved costly. The company now faces remand without guidance on whether its specific contractual arrangements might still support arbitration under different legal theories.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does the Flores Foods decision apply to all delivery drivers nationwide?

The decision applies to delivery drivers who transport goods that have moved in interstate commerce, even if the driver’s route remains entirely within one state. The Supreme Court held that workers engaged in the final leg of an interstate journey qualify for the Federal Arbitration Act exemption regardless of whether they personally cross state lines. However, drivers transporting goods that originated and will remain entirely within one state may not qualify for the exemption.

Can companies still use arbitration agreements with independent contractor delivery drivers?

Companies can still include arbitration provisions in independent contractor agreements, but the Flores Foods decision makes those provisions unenforceable for transportation workers engaged in interstate commerce under Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act. The Court did not resolve whether certain business structures or contractual arrangements might affect this analysis. Some arbitration agreements may remain enforceable under state law depending on choice-of-law provisions, though the decision significantly weakens arbitration defenses for logistics companies.

What types of workers beyond delivery drivers might benefit from this ruling?

Workers who handle, process, or move goods that are part of an interstate journey could potentially claim the transportation worker exemption under the Flores Foods framework. This may include warehouse workers who receive interstate shipments, distribution center employees who sort goods destined for multiple states, and logistics coordinators who arrange intrastate segments of interstate transportation. The decision’s emphasis on ‘direct,’ ‘necessary,’ and ‘active’ participation in moving goods across state lines remains the governing standard, but the ruling eliminates geographic movement as an absolute prerequisite.

Conclusion

The unanimous Supreme Court decision in Flores Foods v. Brock fundamentally reshapes arbitration law for the logistics industry and transportation workers. By rejecting geographic bright-line tests and embracing a functional analysis of interstate commerce, the Court prioritized historical statutory interpretation over modern employer preferences. Companies dependent on last-mile delivery networks now face a dramatically altered legal landscape where class action litigation becomes substantially more viable. The questions Justice Gorsuch declined to answer suggest future litigation will focus on contractual structures and title transfer arrangements rather than the geographic scope of worker movement.