Flowers Foods, Inc. v. Brock · ¶13

Make this case the fourth. Before us, Flowers's sole theory is that, to be engaged in interstate commerce for purposes of § 1, a worker must either cross state lines or interact with a vehicle that does (say, by loading or unloading the goods it carries). That theory is incorrect. We have already held in Saxon that § 1 does not require workers to cross state lines. 596 U. S., at 459, 461. Nor, we now add, does § 1 turn on a game of tag with vehicles that do. At least sometimes, a worker who transports goods on an intrastate leg of an interstate journey can qualify for § 1's exemption without satisfying either of those criteria.

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.