That’s the result of the Granholm case. Allowed wineries to ship directly, but did not include retailers.
But did not exclude them either.
Not sure what that means. Retailers are clearly not included in Granholm, thus states threaten them all the time. Perhaps if they were to make it back in front of the court, they’d be treated the same as wineries were. Though I’d hate to see what this court would say about either today.
As you say, they were neither included or excluded; a gray area. I doubt whether the Supreme Court will revisit it soon, but if they do, there is little carryover. Scalia and Ruth Ginsburg both avid wine drinkers were supportive, which is really how it passed.
, Only justice still serving, Clarence Thomas dissented.
According to a paywalled industry publication, the First Circuit heard oral arguments yesterday in a retailer direct shipping case out of Rhode Island and at least one of the Judge’s quesitons seemed to indicate some skepticism that allowing only in-state retailers to ship was necessary to ensure the integrity of the product and to protect the children.
This is one of several (apparently) cases seeking to extend Granholm to retailers using the reasoning expressed in the Tennessee/Total Wine case.
1 Like
Took a while for states to conclude Granholm didn’t cover retailers, then a bunch of them jumped at the opportunity.
-Al
1 Like
Found a non-paywall article and put it in the legal thread, for those interested in the First Circuit retailer shipping case.
2 Likes
Michigan is another state that has been suing entities for shipping wine into the state in violation of state laws. Some of them were retailers, but also three wineries were sued possibly because they had not sought licenses from the state and maybe had not been remitting sales tax. The entities received cease and desist letters but apparently continued to ship.
-Al
1 Like
Being in Ohio and under the thumb of these onerous laws (for instance, the WDC coupons most of you all get are invalid here) this Appeals ruling is good news
I can’t think of a policy that more clearly discriminates against interstate commerce than a policy that 1) allows in state retailers to sell a product to customers 2) disallows out of state retailers from selling the same product to customers. Unless, I suppose, the states are arguing that nothing specifically limits them from buying the wine — just having it delivered within the state? Under an extremely pedantic, narrow view, that’s true — nothing is stopping folks from calling up an out of state retailer, buying wine, and having them hold it for them. Practically speaking, however, for 99% of wine shipping customers, buying the wine also includes having it delivered.
Putting on my TV lawyer hat, it has always seemed like the text is pretty clear:
The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.
Thankfully, one court decided that the power granted is not as broad as it seems. Only Thomas (who dissented) is left from that court, so who knows how it would go if a retail case were brought to them. I think it’s possible they would decide in the opposite direction, and with this court’s history might very well reverse Granholm as well.
I just can’t…if you don’t want alcohol shipped to you, then don’t place an order…could anything be more simple! Volstead Act, Three-Tier system, moronic and corporate influenced courts, blah.blah…blah…States, just stay out of it already!
2 Likes