October Term 2025 · Docket 24-935
Does the federal labor law exemption cover bread delivery drivers on the last leg of an interstate trip?
Flowers Foods says its bread delivery driver, Angelo Brock, is not exempt from federal wage rules because he never crossed a state line. Brock says the exemption covers drivers on the last leg of an interstate journey. The Supreme Court heard argument on March 25, 2026.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official Court opinion was verified.
- — An official Court opinion was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
The Court heard one argument session on March 25, 2026. The main legal question asked whether to adopt a bright-line rule: workers are in interstate commerce only if they cross state lines or interact with vehicles that cross. Flowers Foods endorsed that rule and said a yes-or-no answer would dispose of the case.
Flowers Foods argued that the exemption is limited to workers directly and actively performing cross-border transportation. It said Brock only performs intrastate last-leg work and is not exempt. It described transportation as bookended by loading and unloading on a cross-border vehicle. It said interaction with the vehicle is often relevant, but crossing a border is not strictly required.
Brock's side argued that the exemption covers drivers transporting goods on the last leg of an interstate journey. It said personal border crossing or vehicle interaction should not matter. It called the vehicle-interaction requirement atextual and arbitrary.
The justices tested both sides' assumptions. They asked what the final destination of the bread is and what the final destination in this case is. Brock's side answered that the retail stores, Flowers's customers, are the final destination. A justice also questioned splitting workers on an interstate shipment into different categories.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 1, lines 1-9 — Transcript, file page 1, lines 1-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 19-19 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 19-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 21-21 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 21-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 23-39 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 23-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 41-41 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 41-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 41-49 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 41-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 39, lines 23-37 — Transcript, file page 39, lines 23-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-19 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 41, lines 11-17 — Transcript, file page 41, lines 11-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 43, lines 19-29 — Transcript, file page 43, lines 19-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 43, lines 31-23 — Transcript, file page 43, lines 31-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 47, lines 21-21 — Transcript, file page 47, lines 21-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 21-25 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 21-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 77, lines 33-33 — Transcript, file page 77, lines 33-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 77, lines 43-43 — Transcript, file page 77, lines 43-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 79, lines 55-55 — Transcript, file page 79, lines 55-55
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
Flowers Foods makes and delivers bread. Angelo Brock worked as a driver for the company. The dispute turns on a federal labor law exemption. Some transportation workers are exempt from that law's wage rules. The question is whether Brock's work counts as interstate commerce, which decides whether the exemption applies to him.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 23-39 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 23-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-19 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 41, lines 11-17 — Transcript, file page 41, lines 11-17
How the case got here
The case is Flowers Foods, Inc. , et al. v. Angelo Brock, No. 24-935. Traci L. Lovitt argued for Flowers Foods. Jennifer D. Bennett argued for Brock.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 11-21
What each side wants
Flowers Foods wants a clear rule. It says the exemption covers only workers who directly and actively perform cross-border transportation work. It says Brock only did intrastate last-leg work, so he is not exempt.
Brock wants the exemption to cover drivers on the last leg of an interstate journey. He says it does not matter whether the driver personally crossed a border or touched a vehicle that did. His side calls the vehicle-interaction requirement atextual and arbitrary.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-19 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 41, lines 11-17 — Transcript, file page 41, lines 11-17
What each side says
Flowers Foods endorsed the bright-line rule. It said a yes-or-no answer would dispose of the case. It described transportation as bookended by loading and unloading on a cross-border vehicle. It said the focus is the class's cross-border transportation work. Interaction with the vehicle is often relevant, but crossing a border is not strictly required.
Flowers Foods made an assumption for this case. It assumed a last-mile framing and did not press title or contract issues. It said only Driver 2 is exempt, and that transportation continues until unloading. Brock's side agreed to resolve only the bright-line rule and conceded other issues for this argument.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-19 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 41, lines 11-17 — Transcript, file page 41, lines 11-17
What the justices asked
The justices tested the parties' assumptions. One asked what the final destination of the bread is. Another asked what the final destination in this case is. Brock's side answered that the retail stores, Flowers's customers, are the final destination on this journey.
A justice raised a concern about splitting workers on an interstate shipment into different categories. That concern probes whether the bright-line rule can cleanly sort workers on one shipment. The record does not show a holding or vote on any of these questions.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 21-21 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 21-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 43, lines 19-29 — Transcript, file page 43, lines 19-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 21-25 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 21-25
Why it matters
This case matters for delivery workers and companies. A bright-line rule would make it easy to tell who is exempt. A journey-based approach would look at where a shipment starts and ends. The choice affects wages for drivers on the last leg of long trips.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 23-39 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 23-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-19 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 41, lines 11-17 — Transcript, file page 41, lines 11-17
What the Court decided
Workers can qualify for the Federal Arbitration Act's transportation-worker exemption while moving goods only within one state. They need not cross state lines.
The Court affirmed the Tenth Circuit's judgment.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Opinion — file page 2, lines 1-1 — Opinion, file page 2, lines 1-1
- Official Supreme Court Opinion — file page 3, lines 1-1 — Opinion, file page 3, lines 1-1
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Verified official opinions and orders
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 23-39 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 23-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-19 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 41, lines 11-17 — Transcript, file page 41, lines 11-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 23-39 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 23-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-19 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 41, lines 11-17 — Transcript, file page 41, lines 11-17
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
- Revision 3 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 4 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Removed an unsupported statement that the Court had not ruled; the available source set did not establish that absence.
- Revision 5 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Corrected unsupported no-ruling language and clarified that the article's disposition summary is incomplete.
- Revision 6 · Post Opinion ·
Correction: Added the holding and disposition from the verified official Court opinion.
- Revision 7 · Post Opinion ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.