I thought people on the Supreme Court like beer?
![[smileyvault-ban.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/4/426cc97ad8dd530c8304b0918ca75ff841d4d950.gif "[smileyvault-ban.gif]")
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.
Beat me to it!
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.”
I think Kennedy was a wine lover too
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.
Interesting! I’ve always considered Alito to be a statist in the Rehnquist mold, so maybe some overlap there.
Pretty basic article but informative article, in case some missed it
Winner winner chicken dinner. 7-2 with gorsuch and Thomas dissenting.
Residency requirement unconstitutional
I’d love to hear some of you smart attorneys interpret and opine on the implications of this decision and where things go from here.
The smart lawyers can comment later but I’m reading now
" the proposition that the Commerce Clause by its own force restricts state protectionism is deeply rooted in our case law. And without the dormant Commerce Clause, we would be left with a constitutional scheme that those who framed and ratified the Constitution would surely find surprising. . . . That is so because removing state trade barriers was a principal reason for the adoption of the Constitution. Under the Articles of Confederation, States notoriously obstructed the interstate shipment of goods. “Interference with the arteries of commerce was cutting off the very lifeblood of the nation.” At that Convention, discussion of the power to regulate interstate commerce was almost uniformly linked to the removal of state trade barriers, see Abel, The Commerce Clause in the Constitutional Convention and in Contemporary Comment, 25 Minn. L. Rev. 432, 470–471 (1941), and when the Constitution was sent to the state conventions, fostering free trade among the States was prominently cited as a reason for ratification. "
It essentially says that state residency requirements for wine retailers violate the interstate commerce clause of the US Constitution.
“the developments leading to the adoption of the Twenty-first Amendment have convinced us that the aim of §2 was not to give States a free hand to restrict the importation of alcohol for purely protectionist purposes.”
Thanks Victor. Even I could get that. I wanted an interpretation and opinions about where this leads going forward. How is the wine business going to react? How are shippers likely to react? Are state AG’s just going to lay down on this?
" §2 grants States latitude with respect to the regulation of alcohol, but the Court has repeatedly declined to read §2 as allowing the States to violate the “nondiscrimination principle” that was a central feature of the regulatory regime that the provision was meant to constitutionalize."
BOOM!
“The Association resists this reading. Although it concedes (as it must under Granholm) that §2 does not give the States the power to discriminate against out-of-state alcohol products and producers, the Association presses the argument, echoed by the dissent, that a different rule applies to state laws that regulate in-state alcohol distribution. There is no sound basis for this distinction.”
“The Association’s argument encounters a problem at the outset. The argument concedes that §2 does not shield state laws that discriminate against interstate commerce with respect to the very activity that the provision explicitly addresses—the importation of alcohol. But at the same time, the Association claims that §2 protects something that §2’s text, if read literally, does not cover—laws restricting the licensing of domestic retail alcohol stores. That reading is implausible. Surely if §2 granted States the power to discriminate in the field of alcohol regulation, that power would be at its apex when it comes to regulating the activity to which the provision expressly refers”
While Granholm suggested that a three tier system could be imposed constitutionally, it "did not suggest
that §2 sanctions every discriminatory feature that a State may incorporate into its three-tiered scheme. "
A big win. Justice Alito uses fairly expansive language in the opinion, and it will provide substantial ammunition to attack interstate shipment restrictions imposed by the states. The big distributors and wholesalers will spend millions defending shipment restrictions, and the fight will not be easy, but this opinion helps a lot. I wouldn’t say it’s a slam dunk on that point, but the opinion is more expansive than I would have guessed.