Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon (21-309)

argument 21-309

Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 6m 7 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 7 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What does Section 1 of the FAA exempt and how is “class of workers” defined?

John G. Roberts 0:00

Well, your argument next in Case 21-309, Southwest Airlines v. Saxon.

Unknown 0:07

Mr. Dorefsky? Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, Section 1 of the FAA exempts only classes of workers that work on an instrumentality of foreign or interstate commerce, like a plane, ship, or train, as it moves goods or people across borders. That rule follows from Circuit City and Section 1's text and structure. Circuit City held that the exemption reaches only classes of workers engaged in foreign or interstate transportation. As then Judge Barrett held in Wallace, that means an exempted class of workers must perform work analogous to that of seamen and railroad employees. Seamen and railroad employees' key characteristic was working on ships and trains. We know that because seamen was a term of art.

Unknown 0:52

It meant workers who predominantly worked on a vessel. Vessels, by definition, transported or were capable of transporting goods or people over water. And the paradigmatic seamen, as the Court noted in Chandris, sailed long voyages. That made seamen as a class actively engaged in foreign or interstate transportation. Critically, seamen did not include land-based maritime employees. By specifying seamen, Congress excluded stevedores, who are land-based cargo loaders. Now, Saxon says the exemption covers the entire airline industry, but Section 1 exempts classes of workers, not industries, engaged in foreign or interstate transportation. It says seamen, not maritime employees. It repeats foreign or interstate, emphasizing border crossing.

Unknown 1:39

And placed among these other words, railroad employees similarly means workers who perform their duties on the trains. Saxon is not exempt from the FAA. Cargo loaders don't work on planes, just as stevedores didn't work on ships. They load cargo before other classes of workers, like seamen and pilots, do the foreign or interstate transportation. They may facilitate transportation, but that's not the test Circuit City requires. I'm happy to take the Court's questions.

John G. Roberts 2:08

Counsel, in your brief and in your opening here, you seem to be very — being very precise in one of your phrases. You say emphasizing border crossing in determining interstate commerce. Does your test require that the worker who wants to be covered actually cross the border?

Unknown 2:31

No, it does not. The question, as then Judge Barrett explained in Wallace, is whether movement of people or goods through the channel of interstate commerce is is central to the job of the class of workers. So you might have a particular worker within that class who, on a particular day, doesn't cross borders. But the question is whether border crossing and this kind of transportation, analogous to what seaman and railroad employees did, is central to the job of the class of

John G. Roberts 3:04

workers. Okay. So what you're saying is you might have a worker who, in a particular function who doesn't cross the border, but if the other people on his team do, then it's okay?

Unknown 3:17

Well, I think in that hypothetical, Mr. Chief Justice, it depends on whether your hypothetical worker is in the same class of workers as the others on the team. When you're talking about a class of rampage and supervisors, they all have the same job description, and their job description doesn't involve getting on the plane.

John G. Roberts 3:38

Yeah, well, let's say it's a group, but only the most senior members of the group are the ones that do the actual border crossing, and then the others have to, you know, have put in three or four years at the junior position that isn't crossing the border, but then they'll eventually be on that. I'm trying to figure out when you say emphasizing border crossing exactly what You're trying to sweep under the rug. I don't mean that in a pejorative sense.

Unknown 4:06

I think when Congress emphasized border crossing by repeating the words foreign or interstate before commerce, and so the particular type of commerce that is at issue has to involve border crossing of the sort, again, that seamen and railroad employees did. You might have some seamen who didn't cross borders, but if the class — But they would be covered.