Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor Transport Association
| Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor Transport Association | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Decided November 28, 2007 | |
| Full case name | Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor Transport Association |
| Citations | 552 U.S. 364 (more) |
| Holding | |
| Federal law preempts state law that would control the commercial delivery of tobacco and other products harmful to children. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Breyer |
| Concurrence | Ginsburg |
| Concurrence | Scalia (in part) |
Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor Transport Association, 552 U.S. 364 (2007), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that federal law preempts state law that would control the commercial delivery of tobacco and other products harmful to children.[1][2]
Background
Although a provision of the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 forbids states to "enact or enforce a law... related to a price, route, or service of any motor carrier." Maine adopted a law which, among other things, (1) specifies that a state-licensed tobacco shipper must use 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 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 received from someone whose name appears on an official list of unlicensed tobacco retailers distributed to package-delivery companies. In the carrier associations' suit, the federal district court and the First Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the carrier association that Maine's recipient-verification and deemed-to-know provisions were pre-empted by federal law.[1]
Opinion of the court
The Supreme Court issued an opinion on November 28, 2007.[1]
Subsequent developments
References
External links
- Text of Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor Transport Association, 552 U.S. 364 (2007) is available from: Cornell Findlaw Justia
This article incorporates written opinion of a United States federal court. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the text is in the public domain.