Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
WASHINGTON — Decanting a controversy that could upset the tight state regulation of wine and alcoholic beverage sales nationwide, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday agreed to consider the constitutionality of state laws that restrict interstate shipment of wine to consumers. The court granted review in a trio of cases that present conflicting lower court decisions involving restrictive laws from Michigan and New York. “This case will decide whether consumers or a cartel of billion-dollar liquor distributors will determine what wine is available to consumers in New York and two dozen other states,” said Clint Bolick of the Institute for Justice, who represents a Virginia vintner in the challenge to New York’s wine import ban in Swedenburg v. Kelly, 03-1274. The Michigan cases are Granholm v. Heald, 03-1116, and Michigan Beer and Wine Wholesalers Association v. Heald, 03-1120. A pair of other cases involving the beef industry rounded out a gourmet menu of sorts for the high court on Monday. The court granted review of two First Amendment challenges against the government’s promotional program for beef, including the slogan “Beef: It’s What’s for Dinner.” Beef ranchers who disagree with the marketing strategy objected to the government fee they were required to pay to fund it. The beef cases the court agreed to hear are Veneman v. Livestock Marketing Association, 03-1164, and Nebraska Cattlemen Inc. v. Livestock Marketing Association, 03-1165. The wine dispute pits the Constitution’s commerce clause, which gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce, against the 21st Amendment. That amendment ended Prohibition in 1933 and gave states considerable power to regulate the transport of alcoholic beverages. The court, in granting review in the wine cases, consolidated them and asked parties to confine their arguments to the following question: “Does a state’s regulatory scheme that permits in-state wineries directly to ship alcohol to consumers but restricts the ability of out-of-state wineries to do so violate the dormant commerce clause in light of Sec. 2 of the 21st Amendment?” The dormant commerce clause doctrine generally prohibits state actions affecting interstate commerce, unless Congress has affirmatively authorized states to regulate a given area. Stakes in the case are high for U.S. wineries, whose expansion into e-commerce has been slowed by a patchwork of state restrictions. States and wholesalers stand to lose substantial tax and sales revenue if the traditional system of alcohol distribution is loosened. About half the states restrict shipment of wine directly to out-of-state consumers. “We welcome the opportunity to challenge laws whose sole purpose is economic protectionism,” said Kirkland & Ellis partner Kenneth Starr, counsel to the Coalition for Free Trade, a nonprofit organization representing wineries in the interstate commerce dispute. For their part, wine wholesalers have cast the dispute as a fight to prevent uncontrolled sales of alcohol — not just wine — to minors through the Internet. “We believe the Supreme Court will use this opportunity to let states know that they have the right to protect their communities, safeguard their children, and track sales and distribution of alcohol within their borders,” said Juanita Duggan, president of the Wine and Spirits Wholesalers of America. “The Constitution and common sense do not distinguish between wine and other types of alcohol,” added Georgetown University Law Center professor Viet Dinh, who is part of the wholesalers’ legal team. “The plaintiffs’ arguments create a regulatory loophole that you can drive a Captain Morgan’s truck through. It would eliminate the eye-to-eye contact at the point of sale that is the linchpin of the system.” In the two Michigan cases, the state and beer and wine wholesalers challenge a ruling by the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that struck down the state’s ban on alcohol imports. The Second and Seventh Circuits have ruled in favor of state regulation, while the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eleventh Circuits have ruled that the commerce clause’s discouragement of state-imposed trade barriers supersedes the states’ 21st Amendment powers. In Swedenburg, the Second Circuit in February found that the New York restriction on wine import “serves valid regulatory interests,” not “mere economic protectionism.” New York state, in a brief by state Solicitor General Caitlin Halligan, agrees that the high court should review both Swedenburgand the Michigan appeal to resolve a circuit split that “appears irreconcilable and is quickly deepening.” Also Monday, the court issued rulings in two cases, leaving 27 pending cases to decide by the end of June. The rulings were: • Nelson v. Campbell, 03-6821, in which a unanimous court held that death row inmates may, in limited circumstances, file § 1983 civil rights lawsuits challenging the conditions of their confinement without violating federal laws that restrict repetitive habeaspetitions. Alabama death row inmate David Nelson challenged a special “cutdown” procedure the state planned to use to gain access to his veins for the lethal injection that would execute him. Because years of drug abuse compromised his veins, the state planned to make a two-inch incision in his arm or leg. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote that Nelson should be permitted to make an Eighth Amendment claim, but cautioned that the ruling is “extremely limited” and should not be read to allow for broad challenges to methods of execution. • Thornton v. United States, 03-5165, a 7-2 decision that allows police to search the inside of a car in the course of arresting a suspect who is standing outside the car. Marcus Thornton challenged the search by a Norfolk, Va., police officer that led to his arrest on drug and firearm possession charges. Chief Justice William Rehnquist, writing for the majority, said such a search is permitted under the court’s 1981 ruling in Belton v. New York. Justices John Paul Stevens and David Souter dissented, arguing that the majority had gone beyond the Beltonrule and given short shrift to “the citizen’s constitutionally protected interest in privacy.” Tony Mauro is Supreme Court correspondent for American Lawyer Media andThe Recorder’s Washington, D.C., affiliateLegal Times. His e-mail address is [email protected].

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.