Clay Moock worked as an "Environmental Specialist" for Energy Transfer, which owns and operates interstate natural-gas pipelines, in a job he performed across Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Alabama.¹ In 2022, after a failed pipeline-cleaning operation, a leak was discovered and Moock was sent to the site, where a massive explosion engulfed him and a pipeline-repair technician, who later died, leaving Moock with permanent, disabling burns.² Moock testified that his work in assessing and remediating leaks, including deciding when to stop and restore gas flow, was integral to the flow of gas, and that he collected samples of byproducts, drove or shipped them across state lines to vendors and handled disposal.³ Energy Transfer says he was a remediation specialist who never handled, directed or controlled the flow of gas and signed a broad arbitration agreement covering all tort claims arising from his employment.⁴

Moock and his family sued Energy Transfer in 2023, Energy Transfer moved to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, and the trial court denied the motion.¹ The Fourteenth Court of Appeals reversed in a June 3, 2025 opinion, addressing only the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and holding that Moock is not exempt under section 1, after disregarding four of his statements as conclusory.² While Moock's petition for review was pending, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Flowers Foods, Inc. v. Brock on the section 1 exemption.³ On June 26, 2026 this Court granted the petition without argument, vacated the court of appeals' judgment and remanded for it to consider the effect of that decision.⁴

Petition for review from the Fourteenth Court of Appeals (Houston); granted without oral argument under Tex. R. App. P. 59.1, with the court of appeals' judgment vacated and the case remanded; per curiam opinion issued June 26, 2026.⁵

• The Moocks:¹ whether the court of appeals erred in reversing the denial of the motion to compel arbitration, because Moock is exempt from the FAA as a worker engaged in interstate commerce under 9 U.S.C. section 1 and none of his affidavit testimony is conclusory.
• Energy Transfer:² whether the Court should review the court of appeals' holding that an environmental remediation specialist who never handled or controlled the flow of gas is not an exempt transportation worker, its finding that four statements in one affidavit were conclusory, and a judgment that rests on alternative grounds.

Whether Moock is exempt under FAA section 1.

The Moocks (Petitioners): Moock was part of a class of workers engaged in interstate commerce because he played an active, direct and integral role in the operation of interstate pipelines and separately transported byproducts across state lines, and the court of appeals imposed prerequisites the FAA does not impose.¹ In reply, they say the Response relies on a falsely narrow view of Moock's duties and that the Court should decide the question for the oil-and-gas industry.²

Energy Transfer (Respondent): The decision applies the FAA's text, precedent and purpose, because the residual clause must be read in light of "seamen" and "railroad employees" and covers only transportation workers, and no real split exists among Texas courts.³

Whether the court of appeals wrongly discounted Moock's testimony.

The Moocks (Petitioners): The court of appeals wrongly treated certain statements as conclusory and sided with the employer's supervisor's affidavit over Moock's, which departs from Texas precedent.⁴

Energy Transfer (Respondent): The court of appeals reasonably found four bare legal conclusions in a single affidavit conclusory, and its judgment is supported by alternative grounds including the parties' designation of the FAA, the Texas Arbitration Act, and state law.⁵

The Moocks argued that the decision leaves Texans unsure who is exempt from the FAA, especially in the oil-and-gas industry, that the issue was pending in the U.S. Supreme Court in Flowers Foods and in another Fourteenth Court case, and that the Court could decide this case with the benefit of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision or at least hold the petition.¹

None noted

Holding

The Court made no holding on the section 1 exemption and expressed no view on that question or on the merits.¹

Disposition

Petition granted, court of appeals' judgment vacated, and the case remanded to that court so that it may consider the impact, if any, of Flowers Foods v. Brock.²

Vote Breakdown

Per Curiam Opinion

Joined by Blacklock, C.J., and Bland, Busby, Hawkins, Huddle, Lehrmann, Sullivan, and Young, JJ.

Did Not Participate

Devine, J.

Per curiam opinion, with Justice Devine not participating.¹