Term: 2007
Docket: 06-457
G. Steven Rowe, Attorney General Of Maine v. New Hampshire Motor Transport Association, Et Al.
- Pro
06-457 ROWE V. NEW HAMPSHIRE MOTOR TRANSPORT ASSN. DECISION BELOW: 448 F3d 66 CERT. GRANTED 6/25/2007 QUESTION PRESENTED: 1. Whether the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (“FAAAA”), 49 U.S.C. §14501(c)(1) and 41713(b)(4)(A), preempts states from exercising their historic public health police powers to regulate carriers that deliver contraband such as tobacco and other dangerous substances to children. 2. Whether the FAAAA preempts states from exercising their historic public health police powers to require shippers of contraband such as tobacco and other dangerous substances to utilize a carrier that provides age verification and signature services to ensure that such substances are not delivered to children. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 05-2136
The U.S. Supreme Court case G. Steven Rowe, Attorney General of Maine v. New Hampshire Motor Transport Association et al., 2007 revolved around a dispute over the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA) and its preemption clause which prohibits states from enacting laws related to "price, route or service" of any motor carrier transporting property. The state of Maine had enacted several laws regulating the delivery and transportation of tobacco products in an effort to prevent minors from obtaining them illegally through internet sales. However, these regulations were challenged by various transport companies who argued that they were preempted by federal law under FAAAA's preemption clause as they affected their services significantly. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the transport associations stating that Maine’s statutes did indeed relate to “services” provided by motor carriers and thus fell within the scope of FAAAA's preemption clause despite being public health measures rather than economic regulations aimed at governing market factors such as price or routes directly.
In the dissenting opinion for Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor Transport Association, Justice Breyer argued that Maine's law should not be preempted by federal law. He contended that the state statute was a public health measure designed to prevent minors from gaining access to tobacco products and did not relate to a transportation service's prices, routes or services in any significant way. The majority held that Maine’s regulation of carrier delivery practices was related to transportation services and thus preempted by federal law under the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA). However, Breyer disagreed with this interpretation of “related to”, arguing it could lead courts into an interpretive quagmire where they would have difficulty distinguishing between laws significantly affecting rates, routes or services and those only tangentially doing so. He also pointed out inconsistencies in previous rulings on similar cases which further complicated matters.
