This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
The Supreme Court held that Latrice Saxon belongs to a class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce and is therefore exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act’s coverage.
Background and question before the Court
The question presented is whether, under § 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act, Latrice Saxon belongs to a “class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce” that is exempted from the Act’s coverage.
What each side argues
Southwest Airlines (Petitioner)
According to Southwest Airlines, section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act exempts only classes of workers that work on an instrumentality of foreign or interstate commerce, such as a plane, ship, or train, as it moves goods or people across borders.
Southwest argues that the cases cited by the Court are not under the specific statute at issue because that statute did not exist when those cases were decided, but Congress deliberately used the language “engaged in interstate commerce” in the current statute.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Gorsuch asked: “Now what evidence is there that railroad workers who did that were or were not covered by this statutory language? And, if they were covered by it, do you lose?”
Chief Justice Roberts asked: “What about ticket agents? Are they included as transport workers under your approach?”
Justice Kavanaugh asked: “In your answers to the Chief Justice, you have two arguments, alternative arguments. Are you distinguishing your broader ‘all airline workers’ from your narrower argument, or am I misreading how you constructed your – your argument?”
According to Justice Kavanaugh, justice Kavanaugh followed up: “But, on your narrower argument, does that bring in then the gate ticket agents, or is that a question for another day, or where does that stand?”
Justice Alito asked: “What – to what industries would it apply besides the airlines?”
Justice Breyer asked: “How – how do you distinguish – trucking is in – you say trucking is in the exemption.”
Justice Alito asked: “If everybody who worked for the Cunard line was covered, what would be the point of – or that's not a – that's a passenger shipping line.”
Justice Alito further asked: “Suppose it said seamen, railroad engineers, and others engaged in interstate or foreign commerce. Would everybody who worked for the railroad be covered?”
Justice Kagan asked: “So would – would – assume two things for me.”
According to Justice Gorsuch, justice Gorsuch added: “I have a historical question you –”
- [1] 12a4d63903b3952515dd-r1-2ddef3554d3b7430.pdf, p. 13
- [2] 12a4d63903b3952515dd-r1-2ddef3554d3b7430.pdf, p. 42
- [3] 12a4d63903b3952515dd-r1-2ddef3554d3b7430.pdf, p. 44
- [4] 12a4d63903b3952515dd-r1-2ddef3554d3b7430.pdf, p. 45
- [5] 12a4d63903b3952515dd-r1-2ddef3554d3b7430.pdf, p. 58
- [6] 12a4d63903b3952515dd-r1-2ddef3554d3b7430.pdf, p. 61
- [7] 12a4d63903b3952515dd-r1-2ddef3554d3b7430.pdf, p. 64
- [8] 12a4d63903b3952515dd-r1-2ddef3554d3b7430.pdf, p. 65
- [9] 12a4d63903b3952515dd-r1-2ddef3554d3b7430.pdf, p. 66
- [10] 12a4d63903b3952515dd-r1-2ddef3554d3b7430.pdf, p. 68
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 12a4d63903b3952515dd-r1-2ddef3554d3b7430.pdforal argument transcript
- f5933777aaeff77b9577-r1-694d9e9fed03aca8.pdfopinion
Guide generated September 28, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.