"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 find it interesting that Thomas would be opposed to this.
I see this as a true interstate commerce issue.
If I sent a courier there to pick up the wine for me, nobody would have issue with that.
The internet sales are just and extension of the courier concept.
You should read the full text of his dissent to see if he has written an answer to your question.
On first glance, I would guess that the state can control the in-state businesses, but has trouble controlling business in other states.
I do agree with the majority.
because if an in-state distributor in NY is selling to minors - NY can use its law enformcent powers to go after them. if a seller in California does the same, NY is powerless to do anything to them.
Amendment XXI
Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Section 2. 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.
That is fairly clear language.The amendment gives the stats clear ability to legislate the manner in which liquor can be brought into their state....