U.S. Supreme Court Rules on Two Cases
The U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling that could significantly reshape how labor disputes are handled nationwide, siding with a delivery driver seeking to expand which workers are exempt from mandatory arbitration — a decision with broad implications for employers and the American workforce.
In a 9–0 decision, the justices overturned a lower court ruling that had dismissed a proposed class action lawsuit brought by Neal Bissonette, a delivery driver for LePage Bakeries on Park Street, a subsidiary of Flowers Foods, the company behind Wonder Bread.
Bissonette argues that Flowers Foods improperly classifies its delivery drivers as independent contractors rather than employees, allowing the company to deny them minimum wage, overtime pay, and other legally required protections while they transport baked goods to retailers.
At the center of the dispute is the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) of 1925, which generally requires courts to enforce arbitration agreements as written. Many corporations rely on these agreements, claiming arbitration is faster and more efficient than litigation. Critics counter that forced arbitration often shields companies from accountability, particularly in cases involving widespread labor violations.
The FAA includes exemptions for employment contracts “of seamen, railroad employees, and any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.” For years, courts have wrestled with how broadly that language should be applied.
“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,” the outlet noted.
In 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled against Bissonette, holding that the exemption did not apply because LePage Bakeries sells bread, not transportation services. The Supreme Court rejected that narrow interpretation, clearing the way for Bissonette’s lawsuit to proceed and potentially expanding the category of workers who can bypass forced arbitration.
The ruling arrives as the Supreme Court continues to face intense political scrutiny, particularly in cases involving President Donald J. Trump, who is currently serving his second term.
Last week, the Court also made headlines after Justice Samuel Alito did not participate in considering or ruling on a petition involving President Trump. In MACTRUONG, DMT v. Trump, President of U.S., et al., the Court dismissed a petition for a writ of certiorari, explicitly noting that Alito took “no part” in the decision. No explanation was provided for his nonparticipation.
The petitioner, DMT MacTruong, is a frequent litigant known for filing lawsuits alleging abuses of power, constitutional violations, and intellectual property theft. In this case, he accused President Trump and Vice President JD Vance of “egregious abuse of power, commission of high crimes, misdemeanors, [and] treason,” and sought a court order to “impeach and remove” them from office.
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition outright.
The decision comes amid ongoing attacks on Justice Alito from the political left, including renewed demands that he recuse himself from Trump-related cases as the Court reviews several high-profile matters connected to the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot.
Alito has faced criticism following reports that an inverted American flag was flown outside his home on Jan. 17, 2021 — a symbol that later became associated with supporters of claims that the 2020 election was stolen. In written responses to Congress, Alito stated he did not participate in displaying the inverted flag or an “Appeal to Heaven” flag that was also seen outside his residence, and he insisted neither incident met the threshold for recusal under Supreme Court ethics standards.
MacTruong further claimed in his filing that he had personally intervened to help President Trump avoid impeachment.
“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 said.
“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,” MacTruong added.
The lawsuit also alleged that President Trump conspired against the plaintiff as part of a broader political agenda — claims the Court declined to entertain.
As President Trump’s second-term judiciary continues to shape the legal landscape, the Supreme Court’s latest rulings underscore both its expanding influence on labor law and the relentless political warfare surrounding the nation’s highest court.