State of New York v. United Parcel Service

United Parcel Service Inc. v. New York Cert Petition

August 4, 2020Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Questions presented:

1. The Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act prohibits the knowing transportation of “a quantity” of more than 10,000 untaxed cigarettes in the “possession” of unauthorized persons. 18 U.S.C. § 2341(2). The first question presented is whether multiple shipments from different shippers may be aggregated to satisfy the 10,000-cigarette threshold.
2. The Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act of 2009 exempts UPS by name if its tobacco-delivery agreement with New York is “honored” nationwide. 15 U.S.C. § 376a(e)(3)(B)(ii)(I). The second question presented is whether substantial compliance is a prerequisite to this statutory exemption.

Second Circuit materials here:

CA2 Opinion

UPS Brief

New York Opening Brief

UPS Reply

New York Reply

DCT materials here.

Federal Court Holds UPS Liable for Transporting Indian Smokes

March 27, 2017Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the 200+ page order in State of New York v. United Parcel Service (S.D. N.Y.):

526 DCT Order

Prior post here.

New York Prevails over UPS in Indian Country Smokes Case

September 13, 2016September 13, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials in State of New York v. United Parcel Service (S.D. N.Y.):

An excerpt:

The fundamental reason why plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment and defendant is not is that when UPS was transporting unstamped cigarettes (how many is “TBD”), it was transporting contraband. Pre-amendment § 471 confirms that stamps were required, that taxability was presumed, and that the burden of proving otherwise was on UPS. UPS has not carried this burden. UPS is not entitled to rely on the judicially imposed injunctions or stays of enforcement obtained by Indian tribes, nor is it entitled to rely upon forbearance. It is also of no moment that there were difficulties in determining when tax was required to be paid or not, and it is also of no moment that the State had stood down on collection from reservation retailers altogether. At the end of the day, the situation — which may have advantaged reservation retailers — placed UPS in a precarious position; without its own statutory exemption or legal assurance, and in the absence of information as to ultimately taxability of the cigarettes they were shipping, transporting shipments was a risky business indeed. But this was a business risk. UPS could choose to undertake such risk or not. One thing has [38] always been clear: UPS has never had exemption from the CCTA.