WASHINGTON, Nov. 28 - The latest battleground in the federalism wars at the Supreme Court is an unlikely one: the state of Maine, which is trying to prevent under-age consumers from buying cigarettes over the Internet.

Maine maintains that it is doing nothing more than protecting public health and carrying out the desire of Congress to curb smoking among young people. Its 2003 law requires those who sell tobacco products directly to consumers to use only those delivery services that verify the age of the recipient.

The trucking industry, supported by the federal government, warns to the contrary that the Maine statute opens the door to the very patchwork of conflicting state regulations that Congress meant to pre-empt when it deregulated motor transportation.

Two lower federal courts agreed with the industry, and found that the state law was pre-empted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994. In arguments on Wednesday, the Supreme Court appeared inclined to reach the same result.

"What if every state enacted a slightly different law?" Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. asked Paul Stern, Maine's deputy attorney general. "Wouldn't you agree that there would be just the kind of patchwork regulation at the state level that this statute was intended to stop?"

If Maine, or the 38 other states that signed a brief supporting it, had allies on the Supreme Court, those justices did not make themselves known during the argument. Attacks on Maine's position came from across the court's spectrum, reflecting that pre-emption cases often do not follow the usual ideological lines.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer told Mr. Stern that while the state's goal might be a worthy one, the answer was to "convince Congress to pass a law." He continued, "It's just that if every state does it differently, it's going to be a nightmare."

Full Story: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/29/business/29bizcourt.html?_r=2&oref=
slogin&oref=slogin