U.S. Supreme Court Rules on Two Cases
The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a significant correction to lower courts this week, issuing a 9–0 ruling that expands which American workers may be exempt from forced arbitration — a practice many large corporations use to shield themselves from class-action lawsuits.
The unanimous decision revives delivery driver Neal Bissonette’s proposed class action against LePage Bakeries, a Flowers Foods subsidiary best known for producing Wonder Bread. Bissonette alleges the company misclassified its delivery drivers as independent contractors, stripping them of overtime pay, minimum wage protections, and other worker safeguards.
Many corporations mandate arbitration agreements as a condition of employment, insisting that individual arbitration is cheaper and faster than going to court. Critics counter that these agreements allow companies to avoid accountability when they engage in widespread labor violations.
Under the Federal Arbitration Act of 1925 (FAA), arbitration clauses are generally enforceable — except for employment contracts involving “seamen, railroad employees, and any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.” The legal debate has long centered on how broadly that exemption applies.
As the outlet noted, “The Supreme Court, in a 2001 ruling, said the exemption applied only to transportation workers. Since then, appeals courts have split over whether that means any worker who transports goods or only those employed by companies that provide transportation services.”
In 2022, the Second Circuit ruled against Bissonette, arguing that his role did not qualify because LePage Bakeries sells bread — not transportation. The Supreme Court has now rejected that narrow interpretation, signaling a broader view of interstate commerce that may affect thousands of workers nationwide.
While the arbitration case drew attention on its own, the Court also made headlines this week due to Justice Samuel Alito’s unexplained absence from a petition involving President Donald Trump.
In MACTRUONG, DMT v. Trump, President of U.S., et al., the justices dismissed a petition for a writ of certiorari — and noted that Alito took “no part” in the matter. Newsweek reported that the Court did not elaborate on the reason for his recusal.
The petitioner, DMT MacTruong, is well known for filing sweeping lawsuits accusing political leaders of constitutional violations, abuses of power, and other extraordinary claims. In this instance, MacTruong accused President Trump and Vice President JD Vance of “egregious abuse of power, commission of high crimes, misdemeanors, [and] treason,” and even asked the Court to “impeach and remove” them from office.
The petition was dismissed without comment, and Alito’s reason for stepping aside remains unspecified.
The episode unfolded as Justice Alito continues to face political pressure from the Left, including demands that he recuse himself from Trump-related cases tied to the events of January 6, 2021. Critics have seized on symbolic controversies, including reports of an inverted American flag flown outside Alito’s home on January 17, 2021 — a symbol activists claimed was associated with Trump supporters disputing the outcome of the 2020 election.
Alito has strongly rejected these narratives. In written statements to Congress, he explained that he did not participate in flying the inverted flag or the “Appeal to Heaven” flag also spotted on his property, insisting neither incident met the Supreme Court’s ethical threshold for recusal.
MacTruong, meanwhile, offered his own bizarre justification for being involved in presidential matters. “I helped him twice from being impeached. Once, I wrote to him an email telling him in substance to shut up on the scandalous issue of whether he had used campaign funds to pay Stormy Daniels,” he claimed.
“He did listen but his lawyer Giuliani did not and continued. I wrote another email to Giuliani telling him to shut up also. He finally did and as we all know, the scandal was forgotten,” he added.
The lawsuit further alleged — without evidence — that President Trump conspired against MacTruong as part of his political agenda. The Supreme Court’s swift dismissal reflects the justices’ unwillingness to indulge such politically charged theatrics, even as progressive activists continue pressuring the Court to intervene in matters targeting the Trump administration.