## Facts

- Maine enacted a 2003 tobacco-delivery law to limit minors’ access to tobacco sold by Internet, phone, or mail order.
- The law required licensed tobacco retailers shipping into Maine to use a delivery service that performed recipient age verification at delivery.
- The law also treated carriers as “deemed to know” a package contained tobacco under specified circumstances, including when the shipper appeared on a state-provided list of unlicensed retailers, effectively pressuring carriers to monitor shipments.
- Trade associations representing motor and air carriers sued to enjoin enforcement, arguing federal preemption under the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (FAAAA).
- The federal district court enjoined enforcement of the recipient-verification and “deemed to know” provisions as preempted; the First Circuit largely affirmed.
- Maine’s Attorney General sought Supreme Court review.

## Issues

1. Whether the FAAAA preempts a state law requiring carriers to provide recipient age-verification service for tobacco deliveries.
2. Whether the FAAAA preempts state provisions that, through a “deemed to know” standard and state lists, effectively require carriers to inspect or police packages for unlawful tobacco shipments.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed.
- The Court held the FAAAA preempted Maine’s recipient-verification requirement and the “deemed to know” provisions.
- The Court reasoned that both provisions were “related to” a motor carrier’s “service” because they compelled carriers to provide particular delivery features and to adopt shipment-screening practices.
- The Court rejected the argument that Maine’s public-health purpose avoided preemption, given the breadth of the statutory text and the provisions’ direct operational effects.
- The Court emphasized Congress’s interest in avoiding state-by-state requirements that would create inconsistent carrier obligations affecting routes, services, and market-based operations.

## Legal Principles

- Under 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(1), states may not “enact or enforce” laws “related to a price, route, or service of any motor carrier” with respect to transporting property.
- “Related to” is construed broadly to include state measures with a sufficient connection to carrier rates, routes, or services, including laws with indirect but significant effects on those subjects.
- State requirements that compel carriers to offer specified delivery options or to implement carrier-specific monitoring procedures regulate “services” and are preempted.
- A state’s police-power objective (including protecting public health) does not defeat preemption where the law directly regulates carrier services within the scope of the federal preemption clause.
- General background regulations that affect carriers only tenuously, remotely, or peripherally may fall outside preemption, but carrier-targeted service mandates do not.

## Conclusion

The Court held that federal law preempted Maine’s tobacco-delivery requirements because they directly regulated motor carrier services by mandating age-verification delivery and imposing shipment-policing duties, contrary to Congress’s goal of a uniform deregulatory scheme.


Rowe v. N.H. Motor Transp. Ass’n, 552 U.S. 364 (2008)