Supreme Court, and wine.

[Victor Hong]

Do not click here.

[Kirk.Grant]

OK...I'll follow your instructions (for now), do you want to just post the link?

[YLee]

I clicked it and got a virus

[D@vid Bu3ker]

A case to be argued before the United States Supreme Court on Wednesday may decide whether states can prohibit retail wine shops from shipping to consumers in another state. A ruling might even affect access to small-production beers and spirits, although it's not clear whether it would extend beyond wine.

The case, Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Association v. Blair, does not hinge directly on the issue of interstate retail sales. It instead is focused on the effort of Total Wine & More, a national retail chain of almost 200 stores, to open an outlet in Tennessee. A group of retailers in the state sued in an effort to block the move, arguing that Tennessee law required the retail owners to be residents of the state.

Yet the court’s decision, many believe, will have major implications for interstate wine sales. It could open a wellspring of opportunities to consumers, allowing wine lovers to scour the country for hard-to-find bottles and the best retail deals. Or it could put to rest any further effort to broaden access to fine wine.

“We’re about 90 percent sure it will affect interstate shipping,” said Daniel Posner, the managing partner of Grapes the Wine Company, in White Plains, N.Y.

We'll see...SCOTUS is hard to predict on issues without partisan foundations.

[Neal.Mollen]

I have no idea why Victor is being so coy. It is an Op Ed from the president and chief executive of Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America to this Asimov column:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/23/dini ... ule=inline

[NoahR]

I spent an hour last night reading the Application for writ of cert and most of the Amicus briefs.

Anyone want to bet a bottle of wine on this?
5-4 in favor of Tennessee and against Total Wine. Possibly 6-3. Would be shocked if it turned out otherwise.

There seems to be lots of jurisprudence supporting a conservative view of the 21st amendment trumping the commerce clause, and I am skeptical that anyone is going to convince the conservative majority that the residency requirement represents true discrimination, which has been the only way that 21st amendment rights to state control of liquor sale and distribution have been curtailed.

Just my guess, as a Constitutional Law Scholar...

[D@vid Bu3ker]

Hopefully, if Tennessee wins it will be a narrow ruling. Have to be careful of someone like Thomas writing an opinion that says Granholm was improperly decided.

[David K o l i n]

I have no idea why Victor is being so coy. It is an Op Ed from the president and chief executive of Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America to this Asimov column:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/23/dini ... ule=inline

He’s not being coy. He likes being abstruse

[John A Hunt]

I have no idea why Victor is being so coy. It is an Op Ed from the president and chief executive of Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America to this Asimov column:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/23/dini ... ule=inline

He’s not being coy. He likes being abstruse

To eschew obfuscation, "abstruse" is the proper term where many (including myself) would more likely use "obtuse."

Seems appropriate for any legal discussion to be abstruse when one or both parties are obtuse...



abstruse: difficult to comprehend

obtuse: which comes from the Latin word obtusus, meaning "dull" or "blunt," can describe an angle that is not acute or a person who is mentally "dull" or slow of mind.

[Craig G]

Is a bstruse like a dick?

[Todd F r e n c h]

I spent an hour last night reading the Application for writ of cert and most of the Amicus briefs.

Anyone want to bet a bottle of wine on this?
5-4 in favor of Tennessee and against Total Wine. Possibly 6-3. Would be shocked if it turned out otherwise.

There seems to be lots of jurisprudence supporting a conservative view of the 21st amendment trumping the commerce clause, and I am skeptical that anyone is going to convince the conservative majority that the residency requirement represents true discrimination, which has been the only way that 21st amendment rights to state control of liquor sale and distribution have been curtailed.

Just my guess, as a Constitutional Law Scholar...

If this happens, it might open the door for other states to follow suit, which would be VERY BAD for wine consumers. States will want their tax revenue, will use this ruling (if it passes as such, as Noah predicts) as basis for their own suit, and the list of states to which you cannot ship will grow and grow, no?

[Mich@el Ch@ng]

I spent an hour last night reading the Application for writ of cert and most of the Amicus briefs.

Anyone want to bet a bottle of wine on this?
5-4 in favor of Tennessee and against Total Wine. Possibly 6-3. Would be shocked if it turned out otherwise.

There seems to be lots of jurisprudence supporting a conservative view of the 21st amendment trumping the commerce clause, and I am skeptical that anyone is going to convince the conservative majority that the residency requirement represents true discrimination, which has been the only way that 21st amendment rights to state control of liquor sale and distribution have been curtailed.

Just my guess, as a Constitutional Law Scholar...

If this happens, it might open the door for other states to follow suit, which would be VERY BAD for wine consumers. States will want their tax revenue, will use this ruling (if it passes as such, as Noah predicts) as basis for their own suit, and the list of states to which you cannot ship will grow and grow, no?

Doubtful, I think if they did rule for Tennessee it'd be a pretty narrow ruling, at least IMO.

[Alan Rath]

I have no idea why Victor is being so coy. It is an Op Ed from the president and chief executive of Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America to this Asimov column:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/23/dini ... ule=inline

I just get a different version of the Asimov story. Is there actually a WSWA oped somewhere? Would love to read that. Before lunch, so I don't lose it...

[Neal.Mollen]

My mistake. Here's the link; its another Asimov column: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/10/dini ... sales.html

[Al Osterheld]

The Granholm decision pointed a way for states to collect sales tax revenue from out of state entities by requiring the entities to obtain a license to ship into the state that makes collecting and remitting sales tax a requirement. This was done in California with the additional requirement of reciprocity for retailers (retailer must be in a state that allows shipments from California retailers). The impediment to liberalized shipping laws is not so much concerns over sales tax revenue as lobbying from local distributors and retail associations.

-Al

[cjsavino]

Is today the day or do we need to wait another week

[D@vid Bu3ker]

Only SCOTUS knows for sure.

[Neal.Mollen]

Is today the day or do we need to wait another week

The Term theoretically ends next week. Opinions are released on Tuesday and Wednesday mornings and on the third Monday of each sitting, but at the end of the Term, they will sometimes issue opinions on Fridays as well. The Court is sitting today to release orders in pending cases and to take new ones, and I think it quite likely we will see one or more of the 24 pending opinions today. And because they have life tenure and can do whatever the F they want, if need be they can extend the term a week or two.

So basically David is right.

SCOTUSBlog live streams the release of opinions. https://www.scotusblog.com/

The final conference of the Term (when they decide what cases to put on the docket for next year) is on Friday. I have a case up for cert; wish me luck.

[D@vid Bu3ker]

Good luck!

[Neal.Mollen]

Good luck!

Thanks!

4 opinions today, none of them about wine. The double jeopardy case is an interesting one. By a 7-2 vote, the Court reaffirmed the "dual sovereign" exception to the double jeopardy doctrine. As a matter of constitutional law, a person can't be tried twice for the "same offense," but for ages the Court has interpreted this to mean violation of the same law, so if two "sovereigns" (a state and the feds) have a law against the same behavior, each can get a crack at the defendant. What is interesting here is (a) four votes were necessary to take the case but only 2 justices dissented and only one (Gorsuch) would do away with the exception. So why did the other justices voting to review do so just to say "same as it ever was?" (b) Gorsuch's dissent reads like an ACLU brief. Bet a lot of folks didn't see that coming

[D@vid Bu3ker]

Today's opinions have had a few surprises.

[Troy Stark]

I have now lived in two states (MN and FL) that supposedly do not allow interstate wine shipments from retailers, yet I've never had an issue receiving wine from certain online retailers.

The articles linked suggest that UPS and FedEx do not accept alcohol shipments bound for the states that do not allow these shipments, but I have received shipments from both carriers. I'm a lawyer but too lazy to look into what loophole might be in play here. I actually suspect it's simply a matter of enforcement being too difficult to implement, so various retailers just roll the dice. Thoughts?

[Neal.Mollen]

Troy, I think you should delete that post. No reason to get anyone in trouble

[Gray G]

Troy, I think you should delete that post. No reason to get anyone in trouble

+++++

[Anton D]

I have no idea why Victor is being so coy. It is an Op Ed from the president and chief executive of Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America to this Asimov column:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/23/dini ... ule=inline

He must have become habituated to his usual style of posting blink links and now needs to up the ante.

[AndrewH]

I have a case up for cert; wish me luck.

Seeking or opposing? Either way, good luck (although luck likely better if opposing).

[Neal.Mollen]

I have a case up for cert; wish me luck.

Seeking or opposing? Either way, good luck (although luck likely better if opposing).

Seeking. The US is seeking cert from the same opinion so odds are much better than usual

[Troy Stark]

Troy, I think you should delete that post. No reason to get anyone in trouble

I removed the names to protect the innocent.

[Neal.Mollen]

Troy, I think you should delete that post. No reason to get anyone in trouble

I removed the names to protect the innocent.

Except for yours!

[Troy Stark]

Hearsay!

[Kevin Porter]

Good luck!

Thanks!

4 opinions today, none of them about wine. The double jeopardy case is an interesting one. By a 7-2 vote, the Court reaffirmed the "dual sovereign" exception to the double jeopardy doctrine. As a matter of constitutional law, a person can't be tried twice for the "same offense," but for ages the Court has interpreted this to mean violation of the same law, so if two "sovereigns" (a state and the feds) have a law against the same behavior, each can get a crack at the defendant. What is interesting here is (a) four votes were necessary to take the case but only 2 justices dissented and only one (Gorsuch) would do away with the exception. So why did the other justices voting to review do so just to say "same as it ever was?" (b) Gorsuch's dissent reads like an ACLU brief. Bet a lot of folks didn't see that coming

I haven’t read Justice Gorsuch’s dissent but I can’t help but wonder if his primary concern is for actors who might receive an executive pardon from federal charges but find themselves subject to state prosecution.

[Neal.Mollen]

Good luck!

Thanks!

4 opinions today, none of them about wine. The double jeopardy case is an interesting one. By a 7-2 vote, the Court reaffirmed the "dual sovereign" exception to the double jeopardy doctrine. As a matter of constitutional law, a person can't be tried twice for the "same offense," but for ages the Court has interpreted this to mean violation of the same law, so if two "sovereigns" (a state and the feds) have a law against the same behavior, each can get a crack at the defendant. What is interesting here is (a) four votes were necessary to take the case but only 2 justices dissented and only one (Gorsuch) would do away with the exception. So why did the other justices voting to review do so just to say "same as it ever was?" (b) Gorsuch's dissent reads like an ACLU brief. Bet a lot of folks didn't see that coming

I haven’t read Justice Gorsuch’s dissent but I can’t help but wonder if his primary concern is for actors who might receive an executive pardon from federal charges but find themselves subject to state prosecution.

His views were probably popular on PA Avenue

[Jim Brennan]

Doesn't look like anything today on wine either.

[T. Melloni]

Doesn't look like anything today on wine either.

Today's decision in Iancu v. Brunetti is an interesting one. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 2_e29g.pdf
Funny how a full spectrum of Justices get FUCT under the First Amendment.

[c fu]

If you guys want to talk General SCOTUS stuff check out the great thread Corey started

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=152834

[Neal.Mollen]

More opinions on Wednesday and perhaps either Thursday or Friday. Wine decision this week for sure

[Matt A u s t i n]

Doesn't look like anything today on wine either.

Today's decision in Iancu v. Brunetti is an interesting one. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 2_e29g.pdf
Funny how a full spectrum of Justices get FUCT under the First Amendment.

This decision has me wondering if the TTB will have to start approving some more controversial wine labels as well. Regulation of alcohol seems to generally allow for greater controls, but it would be interesting to see how a challenge to a Fuct wine label would play out.

[pnitze]

ScotusBlog was engaging in reasoned speculation this morning that the opinion will be written by Justice Alito, because he is the sole justice not to have authored any opinions from the January term, and this is the last January case outstanding on the docket.

My hunch is that an Alito-authored opinion is good news for consumers, although the scope of the opinion could be quite narrow.

[Jason M. P.]

There is an interesting case pending right now in the USDC Western District of Tennessee related to a Florida wine shop's inability to ship to a resident in Tennessee. Alvarez and UVA Wines, LLC v. Tennessee Alcoholic Beverage Commission, Case No. 2:19-cv-02151. I will continue to monitor how this one plays out. TABC has filed a Motion to Dismiss, which is still pending. Trial is scheduled for March 2020. In the meantime, the Court has ordered the parties to mediation.

[Neal.Mollen]

ScotusBlog was engaging in reasoned speculation this morning that the opinion will be written by Justice Alito, because he is the sole justice not to have authored any opinions from the January term, and this is the last January case outstanding on the docket.

My hunch is that an Alito-authored opinion is good news for consumers, although the scope of the opinion could be quite narrow.

I'm interested to hear why you think an Alito-led majority would be good news for consumers. I don't necessarily disagree, but I'd be interested in hearing your thought process

[Rauno E (NZ)]

I thought people on the Supreme Court like beer?

[T. Melloni]

I thought people on the Supreme Court like beer?

We know one likes beer.
Justice Scalia and Justice Ginsburg were known to enjoy a glass of wine together from time to time. News reports had them sharing Opus One before the last State of the Union address that Justice Scalia attended.

[Nola Palomar]

I thought people on the Supreme Court like beer?

Beat me to it!

[pnitze]

The main reason I suspect Justice Alito will side with consumers in this case is that, of all the conservatives on the Court, he is the least concerned with protecting state sovereignty. At heart he is a federalist who is comfortable with federal legal supremacy. He sides with the federal government more than any other sitting justice. So to the extent you read the 21st amendment as an arrogation of power to the states to control the distribution of liquor (which is only a partial reading), then I think Justice Alito leans in favor of protecting unrestrained commerce over states’ rights.

Separately, I’d put limited weight on this, but Justice Alito has a strong appreciation for culture, enjoys wine (he’s not a great wine enthusiast to my knowledge, but he appreciates it), and understands the role of wine in society. So he’s not going to come into the decision thinking, “who cares about free trade in wine.”

[Neal.Mollen]

I thought people on the Supreme Court like beer?

We know one likes beer.
Justice Scalia and Justice Ginsburg were known to enjoy a glass of wine together from time to time. News reports had them sharing Opus One before the last State of the Union address that Justice Scalia attended.

I think Kennedy was a wine lover too

[pnitze]

Justice Kennedy is a member of the DC chapter of the Tastevin, and hosted Tastevin events at the Court from time to time. Justice O’Connor is also a member.

[Neal.Mollen]

The main reason I suspect Justice Alito will side with consumers in this case is that, of all the conservatives on the Court, he is the least concerned with protecting state sovereignty. At heart he is a federalist who is comfortable with federal legal supremacy. He sides with the federal government more than any other sitting justice. So to the extent you read the 21st amendment as an arrogation of power to the states to control the distribution of liquor (which is only a partial reading), then I think Justice Alito leans in favor of protecting unrestrained commerce over states’ rights.

Separately, I’d put limited weight on this, but Justice Alito has a strong appreciation for culture, enjoys wine (he’s not a great wine enthusiast to my knowledge, but he appreciates it), and understands the role of wine in society. So he’s not going to come into the decision thinking, “who cares about free trade in wine.”

Interesting! I've always considered Alito to be a statist in the Rehnquist mold, so maybe some overlap there.

[CJ Beazley]

Pretty basic article but informative article, in case some missed it
https://www.winespectator.com/articles/ ... 61e3e000aa

[Ethan Abraham]

Winner winner chicken dinner. 7-2 with gorsuch and Thomas dissenting.

[Neal.Mollen]

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 6_5i36.pdf

Residency requirement unconstitutional