Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to groupPost Subject:
It's not illegal to fly tobacco to New Hampshire...
Go, Supremes...!
Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor Transp. Ass¹n. et al.
Decided: 2/20/08
No. 06-457
Full text: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-457.pdf
CONFLICT OF LAWS: PREMETION (Provisions of Maine¹s Tobacco Delivery Law a
Preempted by Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act)
The issue in this case is whether a federal statute that prohibits States
from enacting laws that regulate certain aspects of motor carriers
preempts two provisions of a Maine tobacco law that polices the delivery
of tobacco to customers within the State.
The United States Supreme Court held unanimously (opinion by Breyer;
concurrences by Ginsburg and Scalia) that certain provisions of Maine¹s
Tobacco Delivery Law were preempted by the Federal Aviation
Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA). Maine adopted a law which ³(1)
specifies that a state-licensed tobacco shipper must utilize a delivery
company that
provides a recipient-verification service that confirms the buyer is of
legal age, and (2) adds, in prohibiting unlicensed tobacco shipments into
the State, that person is deemed to know that a package contains tobacco
if it is marked as originating from a Maine-licensed tobacco retailer or
if it is received from someone whose name appears on an official list of
un-licensed tobacco retailers distributed to package-delivery
companies.²
The FAAAA forbids States from enacting or enforcing a law that relates to
a price, route, or service of any motor carrier. New Hampshire Motor
Transport Association and other trade associations of air and motor
carriers challenged certain provisions of Maine¹s Tobacco Delivery Law.
The United States District Court for the District of Maine granted
summary
judgment for the associations. The United States Court of Appeals for the
First Circuit affirmed. The United States Supreme Court felt that Maine
was directly substituting its own governmental controls for ³competitive
market forces² in relation to the services provided by motor carriers.
This substitution ran contrary to the intent of the FAAAA and was
therefore invalid. Maine believed that because its laws were a way of
preventing minors from obtaining cigarettes, and therefore benefiting
public health, that such laws would fit as an exception to the FAAAA. The
Supreme Court looked at the text and legislative history of the FAAAA and
concluded that no such exception existed. [Summarized by Joel Ford]
--
Please take off your pants or I won't read your e-mail.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends
unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.
Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor Transp. Ass¹n. et al.
Decided: 2/20/08
No. 06-457
Full text: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-457.pdf
CONFLICT OF LAWS: PREMETION (Provisions of Maine¹s Tobacco Delivery Law a
Preempted by Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act)
The issue in this case is whether a federal statute that prohibits States
from enacting laws that regulate certain aspects of motor carriers
preempts two provisions of a Maine tobacco law that polices the delivery
of tobacco to customers within the State.
The United States Supreme Court held unanimously (opinion by Breyer;
concurrences by Ginsburg and Scalia) that certain provisions of Maine¹s
Tobacco Delivery Law were preempted by the Federal Aviation
Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA). Maine adopted a law which ³(1)
specifies that a state-licensed tobacco shipper must utilize a delivery
company that
provides a recipient-verification service that confirms the buyer is of
legal age, and (2) adds, in prohibiting unlicensed tobacco shipments into
the State, that person is deemed to know that a package contains tobacco
if it is marked as originating from a Maine-licensed tobacco retailer or
if it is received from someone whose name appears on an official list of
un-licensed tobacco retailers distributed to package-delivery
companies.²
The FAAAA forbids States from enacting or enforcing a law that relates to
a price, route, or service of any motor carrier. New Hampshire Motor
Transport Association and other trade associations of air and motor
carriers challenged certain provisions of Maine¹s Tobacco Delivery Law.
The United States District Court for the District of Maine granted
summary
judgment for the associations. The United States Court of Appeals for the
First Circuit affirmed. The United States Supreme Court felt that Maine
was directly substituting its own governmental controls for ³competitive
market forces² in relation to the services provided by motor carriers.
This substitution ran contrary to the intent of the FAAAA and was
therefore invalid. Maine believed that because its laws were a way of
preventing minors from obtaining cigarettes, and therefore benefiting
public health, that such laws would fit as an exception to the FAAAA. The
Supreme Court looked at the text and legislative history of the FAAAA and
concluded that no such exception existed. [Summarized by Joel Ford]
--
Please take off your pants or I won't read your e-mail.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends
unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.
Miss Elaine Eos <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked.com> wrote:
>Maine believed that because its laws were a way of
>preventing minors from obtaining cigarettes, and therefore benefiting
>public health, that such laws would fit as an exception to the FAAAA. The
>Supreme Court looked at the text and legislative history of the FAAAA and
>concluded that no such exception existed.
This is soooo telling. " We were doing it for the 'public health', aka
'for the chiiiiiiiildren', so we just assumed it was an exception."
>Maine believed that because its laws were a way of
>preventing minors from obtaining cigarettes, and therefore benefiting
>public health, that such laws would fit as an exception to the FAAAA. The
>Supreme Court looked at the text and legislative history of the FAAAA and
>concluded that no such exception existed.
This is soooo telling. " We were doing it for the 'public health', aka
'for the chiiiiiiiildren', so we just assumed it was an exception."
On Apr 22, 8:31=EF=BF=BDpm, Mickey <Mic...@NOSPAMFatHounds.com> wrote:
> Miss Elaine Eos <M...@your-pants.PlayNaked.com> wrote:
>
> >Maine believed that because its laws were a way of
> >preventing minors from obtaining cigarettes, and therefore benefiting
> >public health, that such laws would fit as an exception to the FAAAA. The=
> >Supreme Court looked at the text and legislative history of the FAAAA and=
> >concluded that no such exception existed.
>
> This is soooo telling. " We were doing it for the 'public health', aka
> 'for the chiiiiiiiildren', so we just assumed it was an exception."
YESSSS!!!! (gotta call the NH kiddo!) Go NH!! !
> Miss Elaine Eos <M...@your-pants.PlayNaked.com> wrote:
>
> >Maine believed that because its laws were a way of
> >preventing minors from obtaining cigarettes, and therefore benefiting
> >public health, that such laws would fit as an exception to the FAAAA. The=
> >Supreme Court looked at the text and legislative history of the FAAAA and=
> >concluded that no such exception existed.
>
> This is soooo telling. " We were doing it for the 'public health', aka
> 'for the chiiiiiiiildren', so we just assumed it was an exception."
YESSSS!!!! (gotta call the NH kiddo!) Go NH!! !
