SCOTUS Unanimous: Last Mile Exempt §1 FAA

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Flowers Foods, Inc. v. Brock, U.S. Sup. Ct. No. 24-935, 608 U.S. ___ (May 28, 2026) regarding the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and the question of whether someone can qualify as a worker under the §1 exemption if they never cross state lines and never interact with vehicles that do. Typically, the FAA requires courts to enforce many private arbitration agreements, but it also provides that “nothing” in the law shall be used to compel arbitration in disputes involving the “contracts of employment” of any class of workers “engaged in . . . interstate commerce.” 9 U.S.C. §1. The Supreme Court’s latest decision eliminates one of the many arguments that have been raised to counteract the interstate arbitration exemption under the FAA. In recent years, SCOTUS addressed the scope of §1’s exemption no fewer than three times. In each case, they rejected efforts to cabin its reach. First, in New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira, 586 U.S. 105 (2019), they held that the “contracts of employment” §1 embraces include contracts governing independent contractors, not just employees. Then, in Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon, 596 U.S. 450 (2022), they held an airline worker who loaded and unloaded cargo fit within §1’s exemption, even though she did not fly planes or otherwise cross state lines. Finally, in Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC, 601 U.S. 246, 249 (2024), they held that a worker can fall under §1 whether employed in the “transportation industry” or some other, so long as their work “play[s] a direct and necessary role in the free flow of goods across borders.” In the instant mattter, they clarified that independent contractors and employees that make “last mile” deliveries as part of a “continuous journey” of goods from one state to another are exempt from arbitration under §1 of the FAA covering interstate transportation workers, even if all of the distributor’s services are intrastate. The Court stated such workers “can sometimes be direct, necessary, and active participants in moving goods ‘from … points in one state’ to ‘points in another state’ without crossing state lines or interacting with vehicles that do.” See more here-- https://tinyurl.com/52rvabua and https://tinyurl.com/mj39rvtf

SCOTUS - Second Unanimous Arbitration Opinion

This month, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its second unanimous opinion on arbitration. In New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira, which arose out of an employment dispute between a trucking company and driver, the Court found while the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) authorizes a court to compel arbitration if parties agreed to arbitrate, the statute also defines the agreements to which it applies. Before a court enforces an agreement to arbitrate, it must first ensure the agreement is one the FAA authorizes courts to enforce. Specifically at issue was whether an exception to the rule in the FAA that obligates courts to enforce arbitration agreements that involve interstate commerce applied. Section I of the FAA exempts contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce from arbitration. The opinion explains while a private agreement may be crystal clear and require arbitration of every question under the sun, that does not necessarily mean the FAA authorizes courts to stay litigation and send the parties to an arbitral forum. In this instance, companies engaged in interstate or foreign transportation should take notice that a trucker’s status as an independent contractor no longer protects the company’s arbitration agreement with him or her under the FAA. Interestingly, despite a conservative majority, the justices chose to interpret the FAA in a way that likely expands worker’s rights. Justice Gorsuch, who authored the opinion, did not deny the vigor of the court’s embrace of a liberal federal policy favoring arbitration agreements. However, in this case, the text seemed clear enough to persuade all of the justices to reject the claim for arbitration. See commentaries here-- https://bit.ly/2Gdqhb2 and https://bit.ly/2CvAxro and opinion here-- https://bit.ly/2CyEpbd