Posted on 05/16/2005 7:41:23 AM PDT by Sthitch
WASHINGTON - Wine lovers may buy directly from out-of-state vineyards, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, striking down laws banning a practice that has flourished because of the Internet and growing popularity of winery tours.
The 5-4 decision overturns laws in New York and Michigan that make it a crime to buy wine directly from vineyards in another state. In all, 24 states have laws that bar interstate shipments.
The state bans are discriminatory and anti-competitive, the court said.
"States have broad power to regulate liquor," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority. "This power, however, does not allow states to ban, or severely limit, the direct shipment of out-of-state wine while simultaneously authorizing direct shipment by in-state producers."
"If a state chooses to allow direct shipments of wine, it must do so on evenhanded terms," he wrote.
Kennedy was joined in his opinion by Justices Antonin Scalia, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.
At issue was the 21st Amendment, which ended Prohibition in 1933 and granted states authority to regulate alcohol sales. Nearly half the states subsequently passed laws requiring outside wineries to sell their products through licensed wholesalers within the state.
But the Constitution also prohibits states from passing laws that discriminate against out-of-state businesses. That led to a challenge to laws in Michigan and New York, which allow direct shipments for in-state wineries but not out-of-state ones.
In a dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas argued that the ruling needlessly overturns long-established regulations aimed partly at protecting minors. State regulators under the 21st Amendment have clear authority to regulate alcohol as the see fit, he wrote.
"The court does this nation no service by ignoring the textual commands of the Constitution and acts of Congress," Thomas wrote.
He was joined in his opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and John Paul Stevens.
While the ruling only involves wine sales, industry groups expect that it will soon apply to beer and other alcoholic beverages currently regulated through state-licensed wholesalers and retailers.
In the ruling, Kennedy wrote that states do not have the authority to regulate liquor simply to protect their economic interests.
The decision puts in doubt laws in 24 states that ban out-of-state shipments, although the opinion suggests the laws will be upheld so long as in-state and out-of-state wineries are treated equally.
As a result, states could choose all wineries to sell to consumers directly, but could also bar all wineries from doing so.
The economic stakes are high in the $21.6 billion wine industry. Owners of small wineries, which have proliferated in recent years, say they can't compete with huge companies unless they can sell directly to customers over the Internet or by allowing visitors to their wineries to ship bottles home.
But states collect millions of dollars in alcohol taxes and say the established system helps stem fraud and underage drinking.
The Washington-based Institute for Justice says the 24 states that ban direct shipments from out-of-state wineries are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah and Vermont.
The cases are Granholm v. Heald, 03-1116; Michigan Beer & Wine Wholesalers Association v. Heald, 03-1120; and Swedenburg v. Kelly, 03-1274.
Interesting in the way the votes fell.
Interesting ideological mixing on this decision. And Thomas and Scalia didn't agree. This was the right decision imo.
wine is good
wine IS good.
I've so been waiting for the courts to finally make this ruling. Not that I'm going to order anything... I'm not a wine drinker, but I've always thought the practice was unconstitutional.
now where did i put the address of that fellow from WVa who made blueberry mead?
Im glad this got overturned - there are so many good wineries in the finger lakes who cantsell you their product, except through the liquor stores - and some of the better stuff never hits the shelves because its sold out when they have winery tours
Next on the hit parade is every state extorting the names and addresses of customers from Useless Parcel Service, FedEx, and the merchants themselves so they can send you a bill for the tax. The end result of this is going to be the establishment of automatic reporting of every delivery of anything to your house so the state can charge you use/sales tax. You heard it here first.
we just had sauerbraden last night with plenty of red wine in the mix
wine is good
Yes, wine is VERY good.
Hopefully, I will be able to get some good wine into Utah, most of the state liquor stores stock nothing but plonk.
This is a good decision, but in the states that don't want to acquiesce, they'll just apply the more stringent guidelines to the IN-state businesses.
Great! Since my son moved from Michigan it has been dificult getting Fenn Valley Wine (450 mile drive).
Only GOOD WINE is GOOD........
This ruling has very broad implications. I do agree with it.
"In a dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas argued that the ruling needlessly overturns long-established regulations aimed partly at protecting minors. State regulators under the 21st Amendment have clear authority to regulate alcohol as the see fit, he wrote."
How can a regulation that bars out of state businesses from selling wine directly protect minors when the in state businesses can still sell directly?
I'm getting less and less impressed with Thmoms' logic in his statements these days.
I love wine, but I've discovered that Reds are triggering migraines for me. That includes Ports as well. I can still drink Whites, but it's just not the same.
http://www.smokymountainwinery.com/
My wifes favorite. A sweet wine.
I would agree with the minority in this case; the feds are taking way too much away from the states, period. I don't see it so much as an issue of free trade or alcohol use as I do in what Thomas stated very plainly....
"The court does this nation no service by ignoring the textual commands of the Constitution and acts of Congress"
We are moved rapidly away from this being a group of national states to being one big socialist collective. If the states are devoid of decision making, what is the use of having them?....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.