Flowers Foods, Inc. v. Brock
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Flowers Foods, Inc. v. Brock and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Flowers Foods, Inc. v. Brock.
The Supreme Court addressed whether a worker can qualify for the Federal Arbitration Act's exemption for workers engaged in interstate commerce without crossing state lines. The Court affirmed the Tenth Circuit's decision, holding that workers transporting goods on an intrastate leg of an interstate journey are covered by the exemption. The decision clarifies that the statutory text does not require crossing state lines to be engaged in interstate commerce.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Flowers Foods, Inc. v. Brock.
The Court held that 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.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Flowers Foods, Inc. v. Brock. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Commerce Clause is relevant to Flowers Foods, Inc. v. Brock
The case involves the interpretation of the Federal Arbitration Act's exemption for workers engaged in interstate commerce, which directly relates to Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The Federal Arbitration Act (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.'
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Flowers Foods, Inc. v. Brock that support the summary and concepts above.
The statutory text does not support a rule requiring workers to cross state lines or interact with vehicles that do.
Interstate commerce includes transporting products 'between points in one state and points in another state.'
The statutory text cannot support such a rule.