Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor Transport Association, No. 06-457,
552 U.S. ____ (2008)
Decided February 20, 2008 | See opinion here
The Supreme Court held that a federal statute that prohibits States from enacting
any law "related to" a motor carrier "price, route, or service" preempts two
provisions of a Maine
tobacco law that regulates the delivery of tobacco to customers within the
state. Although the Federal Aviation
Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (FAAAA) forbids states to "enact or
enforce a law ... related to a price, route, or service of any motor carrier,"
Maine adopted a law that (1) requires a state-licensed tobacco retailer to
utilize a delivery company that provides a recipient-verification service
confirming the buyer is of legal age, and (2) in prohibiting unlicensed tobacco
shipments in the State, provides that a 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 sent by someone whose name appears on a distribution list
of unlicensed tobacco retailers. In a
lawsuit brought by transport carrier associations, the district court held that
federal law preempts the "recipient-verification" and "deemed to know"
provisions, and the First Circuit affirmed.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
In an opinion by Justice Breyer, the Supreme Court affirmed. In Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.
(1992), the Court interpreted similar language in the Airline Deregulation Act
of 1978 and determined that state enforcement actions having a connection with,
or reference to, carrier rates, routes, or services are preempted—at least
where the state laws have a significant impact on Congress' deregulatory and
preemption-related objectives. Relying
on Morales, the Court concluded that the FAAAA preempts the Maine statute, whose
"recipient-verification" provision focuses on trucking and other motor carrier
services and substitutes its own governmental commands for competitive market
forces. Moreover, the "deemed to know"
provision requires an examination of every package, thereby directly regulating
a significant aspect of the motor carrier’s package pick-up and delivery
service and creating an improper state-mandated regulation. The Court rejected Maine’s argument that the FAAAA creates a
public health exception to prevent minors from obtaining cigarettes, noting
that neither the statute nor its legislative history mentions such an
exception.
Justice Ginsburg concurred, noting that the FAAAA’s broad preemption provisions facilitate
minors' access to tobacco and urging Congress to provide an effective solution
to the problem. In a short concurrence,
Justice Scalia stated that he did not join the portions of the majority's
opinion that rely on "the reports of committees of one House of Congress to
show the intent of that full House and of the other" with respect to
propositions that either are readily apparent from the statutory text or
unnecessary to the disposition of the case.
