for classes of workers engaged in interstate commerce the district court held that local drivers are exempt interstate workers applying the flow of commerce standards developed under the l s a on appeal plaintiffs for the standard court remedial statute intended to provide compensation to injury or worse and so it's reference to commerce has been construed broadly and literally the supreme court to shake for example expression we noted that it was going beyond the normal meaning o understanding of interstate commerce when the f a a was subsequently adopted well i think what you'll find your honor and i think the supreme court's decision circuit city is instructive here is that certainly it's relevant in a general sense for example the supreme court in circuit city pointed out of bed courts had uniformly construed the concept of being engaged in commerce is far more narrow than the concept of being involved or affecting commerce and so the court used those principles to demonstrate why the coverage provision of the f a a is far broader than this narrow exception but otherwise what the supreme court said was even even though a railroad is engaged in interstate commerce in a general sense and has tracks and cars that are doing both interstate intrastate there are of just a plethora of cases that parse out very finely whether the employee was actually engaged in the interstate component of the employer's work the carriers work or the interstate component so for example you have parents and you have shades with both of which make it clear another that they're not covered by feel good and so i think you know i think the feel of cases aren't as supportive as plain to suggest and i also think that what the supreme court has made clear in circuit city is that the red or the borrowing from standards from another state from another statute which the supreme court said not to still have uniform meanings here the court said that you courts must must choosing i think it is an incorrect reading i think in fact what you see from the supreme court is that there are basically three rules that govern the proper application of the section one exemption here and the st is that you give the terms of the exemption the ordinary original meaning that comes from new prime the nd is that you use the designated categories of seamen and a railroad employs to give content to the scope of the catchall and the rd is or traveling and interstate commerce that gives you a connection to commerce and you're a boeing commerce you're covered by the protrusion purposes the exemption does something very different in that scenario it focuses only on the activities that the class of workers are engaged to perform it as are those activities in and of themselves interstate commerce and i think that's original meaning interstate commerce means crossing over state lines carrying goods or people across  analysis and that is that the inquiry under philo by the its own terms is on what that particular employee that was injured did the work that he or she was engaged in at the time of the injury but the exemption does is i think the natural reading of that in light of those three rules that i articulate from the supreme court is that if you engage the long distance transportation services those are your entities so class of worker in a comparable level of generality that the said she does when i'm talking about a rule twenty three class we're not talking about a narrow geographic class you can gerrymandered interstate commerce workers because you're defining the class to be only people that are working in a particular area where state lines are close by you have to have a class of worker in commerce that's comparable to real world employees see men so you know i think the both parties if i'm understanding just define the class of worker here as local delivery drivers and then the issue is are those workers as a class gauged in interstate commerce in a way that seamen and world order the boys and other long distance transportation workers are we think the answer that is no without beat for any further like development of what percentage of old drivers actually happened to cross state lines running if the thing in the fall river facility fifty percent stay within massachusetts and fifty percent cross into rhode island on a regular basis what do you do with that well again i think you can define the class of worker as the fall river  deliverers you have to define a more broadly you know semen are defined under the statute in terms of those coming in and out of the sort of to use a national model i think you'd have to use a national model and i think you have to ask the question and you know if it's possible that congress could come in remember the whole point of this exemption is not to express any hostility to arbitration at all but for congress to reserve to itself the ability to tailor specific alternative dispute resolution mechanism  cross state lines i think that the record is their own pleading show that they say they claim that they only work they do all of their work within the state of massachusetts and i do since the rangers show interstate commerce in across the nation and beyond which is what makes the coverage provisions so sticking with with the question that i asked the last mile drivers to set the record show whether they stay court stating clearly that interstate commerce is the flow of the goods from the time it starts from the firing of lumber yard or wherever to spiral destination and during the whole time interstate before and when is actually shipped the start in the course of transportation to another state or to a foreign country and this is important they say i'm quoting an express company so this is just like we have here is a class of workers engaged in interstate commerce we know from circuit city that you have to demonstrate two things st to be a transportation worker in the field cases that my brother just described and went off on the fact that some of these people were not transportation workers here these are transportation workers there's no question that the st part they did their quintessential transportation workers more so than in palo alto in the other cases the nd part is whether or not is there delivering packages that started out somewhere else in another country in another state and they're part of one continuous throw of interstate commerce if you look at the supreme court cases involving which you mention there are several cases which i believe really are directly on point and the important point is that this would inform rather congress was thinking at the time we were really looking for growth was congress thinking in one thousand nine hundred and twenty five in the hancock you had a situation and that was sort of like the original big bird where the cargo was at a railroad station they actually hired local people to own rode the cargo there to deliver it in the town and the versus jacksonville paper the supreme court said although in a different context than the us say that it's interstate commerce from the time you start the road you start the process until it gets to those final slice world they say in their papers that they used to use u p s they used to use fed ex they used to use the united states postal service and now they're doing it by contracting directly with people these people come to the terminals just like and u s p s workers they're picking up packages that are in the throes of interstate commerce and they're taking them the last mile of the delivery it's all still within the throes of interstate commerce i don't know  case and in both cases and i think this is accurate if you have the biggest our retail deliver products in the united states perhaps in the world and all of a sudden all the workers who are delivering the products to the homes  river in the product that would cause a huge disruption in our economy it would be a huge disruption and if congress was concerned about it because it is true in one thousand nine hundred and twenty five section one was the product of some labor union opposition then i think you fit into that easily ah i don't see anything to the argument of whether the purser's crossing state lines has anything to do with that analysis i do want to address if i may on the  apply because arbitration is simply a creature of contract you have to have agreed that a little bit of thought and when they specifically say in the contract you're signing that washington law does not apply to the arbitration the public policy of massachusetts is clear that a class action waiver would be on in force of all and you would therefore have to apply the laws of the state where the workers had the most contact with which is question we think that washington should apply should we then go ahead and answer the next question about whether it's in force moron enforceable and to rush into law should this question go back to the district court on your view  ferries that were just working interest say the court found the supreme court found a numerous occasions that that still it was carrying goods that were in the line of interstate commerce or go eventually to  records were crossing state lines and i ask you to apply that analysis thank you on amazon and the status of amazon and the size of amazon and its connection to commerce he did it repeatedly and i think it's very important to focus on the language of the exemption it does interstate commerce that is certainly relevant under the f a a to the coverage provision because it asks whether there's a transaction involving commerce but when you get to the application of the exemption it's very clear you focus only on the activities of the true and that's why when we reference the business in order to see the breadth of the f a a plus the exclusions so i think it's in a way and i'm making a structural point about the difference between the coverage provision and the exemption and the covered coverage provision does exactly i think what your honor is articulating the exemption does something different and it has a narrow focus and it doesn't it doesn't turn for example semen are not exempted if they work for a large but for a small ship or if they would only work for a company that has many ships as opposed to a company that has a few ships you don't want to kill your by employer analysis under the exemption that would again create all kinds of additional fact increase that would brief it's a case that arises under the constitution itself it involves local taxation issues but you have there and interstate railway that also employs local traffic patsey drivers to ferry people from  delivery point at the ferry to their final destinations and the supreme court acknowledged that those persons such passengers were part of an element of continuous interstate transportation and they nonetheless w problematic under state law or not and the amount of controversy here is fourteen thousand dollars which is well above what even the state plans to their the scott case for example from washington dulles numbers between five dollars and forty five dollars so thank you ron thank you