The U.S. Supreme Court Rules that “Last-Mile Drivers” May Avoid Arbitration

Summary of U.S. Supreme Court Case, Flower Foods Inc. et al v. Angelo Brock

In a pivotal case concerning the Federal Arbitration Act’s (FAA) interstate commerce clause (9 U.S.C. § 1), the U.S. Supreme Court held today that “last-mile” transportation workers can avoid previously signed arbitration agreements when litigating employment disputes. (Flower Foods Inc. et al v. Angelo Brock, 608 U.S. ___ (2026), U.S. Supreme Court Case No. 24-935.)

The FAA generally requires courts to enforce privately agreed upon arbitration agreements, with some exceptions. One of those exceptions is the FAA’s interstate commerce clause, which exempts workers “engaged in…interstate commerce” from being forced to arbitrate their employment claims.

The parties in this case asked the U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether transportation workers who never drive across state lines, or interact with vehicles that do, fall within the “interstate commerce” exception. The Court decided they do, in fact, fall within the exception.

In its decision, the Court analyzed what the drafters of § 1 of the FAA would have reasonably understood “interstate commerce” to include. In doing so, it looked at the definitions of “engage” and “interstate commerce” at the time of the FAA’s enactment and found that neither definition required “cross-or-tag” conduct. It also considered several historical cases that interpreted the breadth of the U.S. Constitution’s Commerce Clause as those cases interpreted similar language to the FAA’s interstate commerce clause.

Ultimately, the Court found that “interstate commerce” includes the entire interstate transportation journey of goods, which could include a wholly intrastate leg. It reasoned that workers on these intrastate legs play “a direct, active, and necessary part” in the interstate journey.

The Court declined to consider the employer’s additional arguments regarding business-to-business employment contracts and the final “intended destination” of goods.

Practical Recommendations

Moving forward, employers should be aware that courts must consider this precedential case when deciding motions to compel arbitration. Notwithstanding, to avoid arbitration, transportation workers are still required to establish, by admissible evidence, that they engage in interstate commerce. Employers may be able to compel arbitration by disputing the evidence put forth by these workers.

If you are looking to compel arbitration of an employment dispute, or have any questions regarding the above, we encourage you to contact Michelle M. Brookfield at Buchalter.

This communication is not intended to create or constitute, nor does it create or constitute, an attorney-client or any other legal relationship. No statement in this communication constitutes legal advice nor should any communication herein be construed, relied upon, or interpreted as legal advice. This communication is for general information purposes only regarding recent legal developments of interest, and is not a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter. No reader should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any information included herein without seeking appropriate legal advice on the particular facts and circumstances affecting that reader. For more information, visit www.buchalter.com.