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