WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Supreme Court ruled in Flowers Foods v. Brock that 'last-mile' delivery drivers are exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act if the goods they deliver are part of an interstate journey, even if the drivers themselves do not cross state lines. The decision allows these drivers to pursue employment disputes in court rather than being compelled to arbitrate under the federal law.

Justice Neil Gorsuch authored the unanimous opinion, writing that the statutory text of the Federal Arbitration Act exempts 'workers engaged in … interstate commerce,' and that the term 'engage' means 'to take part in' or 'to be involved with,' without requiring the worker to cross state lines or interact with vehicles that do. Gorsuch concluded that the statutory text cannot support the employer’s proposed bright-line rule that only those who cross state lines qualify for the exemption.

The employer in the case had argued that only workers who physically cross state lines or handle vehicles that do should be covered by the exemption. Gorsuch responded by stating the company 'ventures it all upon one cast, asking us to adopt a bright-line rule that an individual can never qualify for [the] exemption unless he crosses state lines or interacts with vehicles that do.'

To illustrate the scope of interstate commerce, Gorsuch included a hypothetical example involving three drivers delivering Butterscotch Krimpets across state lines, noting that all three participated in interstate commerce despite only one crossing a state border. He also referenced at least four 19th and early 20th century cases in which multi-step transportation arrangements were deemed part of interstate commerce under the Constitution’s Commerce Clause, including one involving a steamer operating entirely within Michigan that transported goods bound for other states.

Gorsuch noted the Court had previously rejected attempts to narrow the interstate transportation worker exemption in at least three cases. 'Make this case the fourth,' he wrote, referring to the Court’s fourth consecutive decision upholding the exemption. The ruling upheld the judgment of the lower court.