Flowers Foods v. Brock: That Last Mile Can Be a Long One – When “Local” Delivery Is Considered Interstate Commerce and Why It Matters to You

Our attorneys help businesses navigate the legal risks associated with employment relationships, independent-contractor arrangements, distribution networks, and arbitration agreements. We assist clients with structuring and reviewing contracts, evaluating worker-classification issues, managing wage-and-hour claims, and defending class, collective, and commercial litigation. The Supreme Court’s decision in Flowers Foods, Inc. v. Brock is an important reminder that the enforceability of an arbitration provision may depend not only on the language of the agreement, but also on the worker’s actual role in moving goods through interstate commerce.

Most people think of “interstate commerce” as something crossing state lines: a truck driving from Georgia to Florida, a plane flying from Texas to New York, or a train hauling freight across the country. In Flowers Foods, Inc. v. Brock, the Supreme Court made clear that the law is not always quite so simple. The distinction is critical in determining contractual rights and the enforceability of arbitration provisions with your sub-contractors and/or independent contractors.

The case involved Angelo Brock, a Flowers Foods franchisee-distributor in Colorado. Flowers Foods makes familiar baked goods, including Wonder Bread and Tastykake products. Brock picked up Flowers products from a warehouse in Colorado and delivered them to local stores in the Denver area. He did not drive outside Colorado. He did not load or unload trucks that crossed state lines. His route was, in the ordinary sense, local.

After Brock sued Flowers, alleging that he and other distributors had been underpaid, Flowers tried to move the case out of court and into arbitration. That mattered because arbitration clauses often prevent workers from bringing class or collective actions in court. Brock responded that the Federal Arbitration Act (the “FAA”), the federal law that usually makes arbitration agreements enforceable, does not apply to certain transportation workers engaged in interstate commerce.[i]

Flowers offered the Court a straightforward rule: if the worker does not personally cross state lines, and does not handle a vehicle that does, the exemption should not apply. The Supreme Court unanimously rejected that rule.[ii] Justice Gorsuch, writing for the Court, explained that interstate commerce is not limited to the single moment when goods cross a border. A shipment can begin in one state, end in another, and still include segments that take place entirely within one state. A worker who handles one of those intrastate legs may still be taking part in the interstate movement of goods.

The Court illustrated the point with a simple example. Suppose goods need to move from State B to State A, and a company uses three drivers. The first driver brings the goods to the border. The second driver carries them across the border. The third driver completes the delivery inside State A. Under Flowers’ theory, only the second driver would count as engaged in interstate commerce. The Court found that answer unrealistic. Each driver played a direct and necessary role in moving the goods from one state to another. That is the heart of Brock: local delivery is not automatically outside interstate commerce. The question is not simply whether the driver crossed a state line. The better question is whether the driver’s work was part of a continuous interstate journey.

The decision continues a recent pattern. In 2019, the Court held that the FAA’s transportation-worker exemption can apply to independent contractors, not just traditional employees. In 2022, it held that an airline cargo worker could qualify even though she did not fly the cargo across state lines. In 2024, in another Flowers Foods case, the Court held that a worker need not work for a company in the “transportation industry” to fall within the exemption.[iii] Brock adds another piece: the worker need not personally cross the border.

For Florida businesses and workers, the decision is especially important. Before Brock, the Eleventh Circuit had used a more restrictive approach, requiring workers to be employed in the transportation industry and to actually engage in interstate commerce.[iv] That framework was already weakened by Bissonnette, which rejected a transportation-industry requirement. Brock now further undercuts any approach that treats purely intrastate delivery work as automatically outside the FAA exemption.

The practical consequences could be significant. Companies that rely on local distributors, franchise delivery routes, or “last-mile” delivery models should not assume that an arbitration clause will be enforceable under the FAA simply because the worker never leaves Florida. If the goods are moving through a larger interstate supply chain, and the worker’s route is part of that movement, the FAA may not compel arbitration. For workers, the decision may open the courthouse door in cases that otherwise would have been sent to private arbitration. That can matter greatly in wage-and-hour disputes, where arbitration agreements often include class or collective action waivers.

Still, Brock is not a free pass for every local delivery worker. The Court left several issues unresolved. For example, Brock operated through a company he owned. He also purchased and took title to Flowers products before selling them to local stores. Flowers mentioned those facts, but did not ask the Court to decide their legal significance. The Court therefore left open whether those business-structure details could affect the analysis in future cases.[v]

So the decision is both clear and limited. Clear because a worker does not have to cross state lines to be engaged in interstate commerce. Limited because courts still must decide whether the worker is truly part of the interstate movement of goods, whether the goods have reached their final destination, and whether the agreement qualifies as a covered “contract of employment.”

In plain English: the last mile may still be part of the interstate journey. After Flowers Foods v. Brock, that last mile may also be enough to keep a worker’s claim in court. Businesses that rely on distributors, franchisees, independent contractors, or last-mile delivery workers should consider reviewing their agreements and operating practices in light of Flowers Foods v. Brock. Our attorneys can assist with evaluating arbitration provisions, assessing worker-classification and transportation-worker issues, strengthening distribution and independent-contractor agreements, and managing related claims and litigation. Contact us to discuss how the decision may affect your business, workforce arrangements, or existing contracts.

__________________________________

[i] 9 U.S.C. § 1.
[ii] Flowers Foods, Inc. v. Brock, 608 U.S. ___, 146 S. Ct. 1358 (2026).
[iii] New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira, 586 U.S. 105 (2019); Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon, 596 U.S. 450 (2022); Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC, 601 U.S. 246 (2024).
[iv] Hamrick v. Partsfleet, LLC, 1 F.4th 1337 (11th Cir. 2021); see also Hill v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., 398 F.3d 1286 (11th Cir. 2005).
[v] Flowers Foods, 608 U.S. ___, 146 S. Ct. 1358.