More than one, three

Finally, just to show how everyone on SCOTUS can get along when corporate profit is at stake, while that decision may have been only 8-1, this one, coming to us from AP via the New York Times, was 9-0:

The Supreme Court on Wednesday invalidated parts of Maine's law barring Internet tobacco sales to minors.

In a unanimous decision, the court said Maine cannot impose a regulatory scheme on transportation companies delivering tobacco products directly to consumers. The justices said federal transportation law blocks the states from doing so.

The ruling could provide the impetus for the transportation industry to get out from under state laws regulating cigarette deliveries in the Internet age.

Various outfits have been evading state laws about tobacco sales by selling cigarettes, etc., online, shipped directly to underage buyers. Maine is one of 32 states with laws targeting such deliveries. The Maine law required delivery companies to intercept packages from unlicensed tobacco sellers and verify the age of buyers in order to keep cigarettes out of the hands of kids under 18. The industry, of course, argued the costs were just astronomical, bankrupting, ruinous, and besides, hey states, you can't touch us, nyah-nyah.

Federal law, the AP article says, bars states from "regulating prices, routes or services of shipping companies." Maine officials argued that this was regulation for public health and safety, not traditional economic regulation of the sort subject to federal preemption. The First Circuit Appeals Court rejected the argument and SCOTUS has now agreed. Writing for the Court, the supposedly liberal Stephen Breyer said that federal law "says nothing about a public health exception" - that is, states can't regulate trucking firms over public health concerns because the law did not specifically say they could. Reading that made me flash back to the 1980s and the Reagan administration saying they could legally funnel money to the contras through the Agriculture Department because Congress did not specifically mention Ag in the law banning such aid.

Getting back to the immediate case, again, there was a money quote, one that revealed the real concern:

Because of Maine's regulation, companies will have to offer tobacco delivery services "that differ significantly" from what the market might dictate, Breyer wrote. [emphasis added]

Because, of course, the Market Is God. And what's more,

[t]he ruling against Maine's law could enable the industry to argue that similar laws in other states are invalid.

Because, again, the Market Is God.

Footnote: The latter two results may be disturbing, but they should not be surprising, not even the majorities. Last June, I quoted a representative of the US Chamber of Commerce calling the Supreme Court session just concluded "our best Supreme Court term ever." In 30 business-related cases, SCOTUS had ruled against business interests just twice and 80% of the decisions were by margins of 7-2 or better. When it comes to protecting corporate America from the ravages of regulation and the awfulness of accountability, the "liberal" and "conservative" wings of the Court are as one.