U.S. views asked on tobacco delivery
on Jan 8, 2007 at 10:07 am
The Supreme Court on Monday asked the U.S. Solicitor General to offer the government’s views on state power to regulate the commercial delivery of tobacco or other products harmful to children. At issue in an appeal by the state of Maine is a state law requiring those who engage in the sale of tobacco products to get a license to operate at retail and to use only delivery services that will provide proof that the products will not go to minors. The appeal is Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor Transport Association, et al. (06-457, petition here). There is no deadline for the SG’s response. (The Order List can be found here).
The state in that case is appealing a decision of the First Circuit Court that the state law is preempted by federal transport law. Thirty-six other states and various tobacco control and anti-smoking groups support the Maine appeal.
The Court granted no new cases for review. It had agreed on Friday to hear seven new cases this Term. The Justices took no action Monday on an important case on congressional redistricting — an appeal by Colorado Republican voters seeking to substitute a legislatively approved map for one drawn by a state court. The case of Lance v. Dennis (06-641) has been to the Court twice before. Because the case reached the Court this time as an appeal from a three-judge U.S. District Court, action on it will require a majority vote of the Justices; it cannot simply be denied if four Justices fail to vote to hear it.
Once more, the Court failed to act on a case urging it to look anew at the constitutionality of the display in public schools of religious symbols during holiday seasons. The case of Skoros, et al., v. New York City (06-271) has been examined by the Justices four times without action on it.
Among the new cases the Court refused to hear on Monday were two bearing on the war-on-terrorism. The Court bypassed Gilmore v. Gonzales (06-211), seeking to force the government to disclose publicly a policy statement requiring searches of individuals prior to air travel. The Justices also turned aside Rahmani, et al., v. U.S. (06-241), testing whether individuals charged with donating money to a group labeled by the government as a “foreign terrorist organization” have a right to challenge that label as a defense in their criminal case. Both challenges lost in lower courts.
The Court denied review of a Bush v. Gore sequel — an appeal by Florida Democratic Rep. Robert Wexler and two county election officials, plus a state voter, seeking to challenge Florida’s system of recounting votes in close election contests. Under state law, some recounts are done manually in some counties, by machine in others. The challengers in Wexler, et al., v. Anderson, et al. (06-401), contended that this differing treatment violating the equality of voting principles discussed in Bush v. Gore. The Court has never agreed to hear a sequel to that famous 2000 ruling that ended the presidential race that year, resulting in George W. Bush’s election.
The Court’s denial of review was no surprise, since the other side had not bothered to respond to the appeal. In the absence of a request from the Court for a response, the petition was not likely to be granted. The Eleventh Circuit rejected the challenge, as did Florida state courts earlier.
Here in brief are some of the other cases the Court declined to hear Monday:
** Padot v. Padot (05-1076), testing the distribution of military disability pay among divorced spouses.
** Palakovich v. Thomas (06-130), on the authority of federal courts to examine the subjective thoughts of defense counsel challenged as ineffective in a criminal case.
** Mineral County v. Ecology Center (06-344), a test of the discretion of federal agencies to choose land-management options based upon the agencies’ interpretation of uncertain science.
** Blue Cross, et al., v. Abbott Laboratories (06-475), involving a dispute among lower courts on when a missing filing deadline in federal courts can be excused.
** EchoStar Communications v. Fox Broadcasting (06-545), on the power of federal courts to issue a nationwide ban on re-broadcast of copyrighted programs by satellite TV networks. The Court had denied a stay in the case on Aug. 22.
