Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-309_o758.pdf
Page Number: 9

6 

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO. v. SAXON 

Opinion of the Court 

that the different term denotes a different idea”).  We ob-
served that Congress used “more open-ended formulations” 
like  “ ‘affecting’ ”  or  “ ‘involving’ ”  commerce  to  signal  “con-
gressional intent to regulate to the outer limits of authority
under  the  Commerce  Clause.”  Circuit  City,  532  U. S.,  at 
115–116,  118.    By  contrast,  Congress  used  a  “narrower” 
phrase—“ ‘engaged in commerce’ ”—when it wanted to reg-
ulate short of those limits.  Id., at 118.  Second, we applied 
the ejusdem generis canon, which instructs courts to inter-
pret a “general or collective term” at the end of a list of spe-
cific items in light of any “common attribute[s]” shared by
the  specific  items.  Ali  v.  Federal  Bureau  of  Prisons,  552 
U. S.  214,  225  (2008).  As  applied  to  §1,  that canon  coun-
seled that the phrase “ ‘class of workers engaged in . . . com-
merce’ ” should be “controlled and defined by reference” to
the specific classes of “ ‘seamen’ ” and “ ‘railroad employees’ ” 
that precede it.  Circuit City, 532 U. S., at 115. 

Taken together, these canons showed that §1 exempted 
only contracts with transportation workers, rather than all 
employees, from the FAA.  See id., at 119.  And, while we 
did  not  provide  a  complete  definition  of  “transportation 
worker,” we indicated that any such worker must at least 
play a direct and “necessary role in the free flow of goods” 
across borders.  Id., at 121.  Put another way, transporta-
tion workers must be actively “engaged in transportation”
of those goods across borders via the channels of foreign or 
interstate commerce.  Ibid. 

Cargo loaders exhibit this central feature of a transpor-
tation worker.  As stated above, one who loads cargo on a 
plane  bound  for  interstate  transit  is  intimately  involved
with  the  commerce  (e.g.,  transportation)  of  that  cargo.
“[T]here could be no doubt that [interstate] transportation 
[is] still in progress,” and that a worker is engaged in that 
transportation, when she is “doing the work of unloading” 
or loading cargo from a vehicle carrying goods in interstate
transit.  Erie R. Co. v. Shuart, 250 U. S. 465, 468 (1919).