Supreme Court Says Local Delivery Drivers May Fall Within FAA Transportation Worker Exemption Even Without Crossing State Lines
The U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Flowers Foods, Inc. v. Brock continues the Court’s recent trend of narrowing the reach of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) in disputes involving workers who help move goods through interstate commerce. In a decision with potentially significant consequences for employers that rely on arbitration agreements, the Court held that a worker can qualify for the FAA’s transportation worker exemption even if the worker never personally crosses state lines and never directly interacts with vehicles that do.
The Dispute Involved Local Bread Deliveries
Flowers Foods is one of the nation’s largest producers of packaged baked goods, including well-known bread and snack products. The company distributes products through a network of franchise distributors who purchase distribution rights for specific territories.
Angelo Brock worked as one of those distributors in the Denver area. He picked up baked goods from a Colorado warehouse and delivered them to retail stores within Colorado. He never crossed state lines during his deliveries. The products, however, had typically arrived in Colorado from bakeries located in other states before reaching the warehouse where Brock collected them.
In 2022, Brock filed suit alleging Flowers Foods underpaid him and other distributors in violation of federal and state law. Flowers responded by seeking to enforce an arbitration agreement contained in Brock’s distribution contract and moved to compel arbitration under the FAA.
Brock argued the FAA did not apply because he fell within the transportation worker exemption found in Section 1 of the Act. That provision states that nothing in the FAA authorizes courts to compel arbitration in disputes involving the “contracts of employment” of workers “engaged in . . . interstate commerce.” See <a href=”https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/9/1″ target=”_blank” rel=”noopener noreferrer”>9 U.S.C. § 1</a>.
The federal district court agreed with Brock, and the Tenth Circuit affirmed. Flowers then appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
Flowers Asked The Court For A Bright-Line Rule
Before the Supreme Court, Flowers Foods advanced a relatively straightforward argument. It contended that a worker should qualify for the FAA exemption only if the worker either crosses state lines or directly interacts with vehicles that cross state lines.
Because Brock delivered products only within Colorado and never handled interstate transportation vehicles, Flowers argued he could not fall within the exemption as a matter of law.
The company essentially asked the Court to adopt a bright-line geographic rule for determining when a worker is “engaged in interstate commerce” under Section 1.
The Supreme Court Rejected That Rule
Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for a unanimous Court, concluded the FAA’s text contains no such requirement.
The Court held:
“A worker who transports goods on an intrastate leg of an interstate journey can qualify for §1’s exemption without crossing state lines or interacting with vehicles that do.”
The Court explained that Congress used the phrase “engaged in . . . interstate commerce,” not “crossing state lines.” Historical understandings of interstate commerce recognized that a shipment can remain part of interstate commerce even when portions of the transportation occur entirely within a single state.
Because the statutory language did not support Flowers’ proposed rule, the Court declined to impose one.
The Court Did Not Decide Every Local Driver Is Exempt
An important limitation of the decision is what the Court did not decide.
The Supreme Court did not hold that every local delivery driver automatically qualifies for the transportation worker exemption. Instead, the Court addressed only the specific legal theory advanced by Flowers Foods. The company chose to argue that crossing state lines or directly interacting with interstate vehicles was always required. The Court rejected that categorical position.
Justice Gorsuch noted that Flowers did not ask the Court to decide whether Brock ultimately qualifies for the exemption under a more fact-specific analysis. As a result, additional litigation will likely continue over how closely a worker’s duties must connect to an interstate transportation stream before the exemption applies.
Why The Decision Is Significant
The ruling represents another step in the Supreme Court’s evolving FAA jurisprudence.
In recent years, the Court has repeatedly interpreted Section 1 more broadly than many businesses anticipated. In New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira, the Court held the exemption applies to independent contractors as well as traditional employees. In Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon, the Court held cargo-loading workers could qualify even though they were not transportation companies themselves. In Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC, the Court rejected an industry-based limitation and focused instead on the worker’s actual job duties. Flowers Foods builds on those decisions by rejecting a geographic bright-line rule.
For employers, particularly companies that depend on delivery networks, franchise distributors, logistics providers, or last-mile transportation services, the decision may make it more difficult to rely exclusively on FAA-based arbitration agreements when workers are involved in the movement of goods traveling through interstate channels. Many employers may now review whether their arbitration agreements contain alternative state-law arbitration provisions that could apply if the FAA exemption is ultimately found to cover particular workers.
The Supreme Court’s decision leaves substantial room for future disputes over where the exemption’s boundaries lie. What is clear after Flowers Foods is that crossing a state border is no longer the decisive test.
Case Summary: Flowers Foods, Inc. v. Brock, 605 U.S. ___ (2026), No. 24-935, decided May 28, 2026. The United States Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the Tenth Circuit’s decision holding that a worker may qualify for the Federal Arbitration Act’s transportation worker exemption even if the worker never crosses state lines and never directly interacts with vehicles that do. The Court rejected Flowers Foods’ proposed bright-line rule that only workers who personally participate in interstate transportation across state borders can invoke the exemption. Instead, the Court held that a worker transporting goods on an intrastate leg of an interstate journey may fall within the exemption because interstate commerce encompasses the continuous movement of goods across state lines, even when a particular segment of the transportation occurs entirely within one state. The Court did not decide whether distributor Angelo Brock ultimately qualifies for the exemption, leaving that factual determination for further proceedings. The decision further clarifies the scope of the FAA’s transportation worker exemption and may limit the ability of employers to compel arbitration against workers involved in local delivery activities that form part of a broader interstate distribution network. Flowers Foods, Inc. v. Brock, 605 U.S. ___ (2026).