Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court Allows Direct Shipment of Wine
jrrl writes "For a while now, ordering wine (of the alcoholic variety, not the almost 0.9 variety) online has been a somewhat dicey proposition in some states. But today, the Supreme Court overturned state laws that disallowed direct shipment of wine from out of state. Their reasoning is that the states' 'authority to regulate the sale of alcohol within their borders' under the 21st Amendment does not supersede 'the Constitution's ban on state discrimination against interstate commerce.' States could still disallow all direct shipments, but at least they have to be evenhanded now."
Actually the result of this ruling is that states must ban all--regardless of origin--direct to consumer sales if they block them at all.
e _court_s.html
The supreme court merely ruled that states could not treat intra-state state sales differently from out of state sales.
The ruling preserves state control over this issue as long as the policy doesn't discriminate against out of state sellers.
see: http://www.professorbainbridge.com/2005/05/suprem
But consider this: It is a big loss for "states rights", because it says that states have no right to control interstate commerce that passes through their borders.
The states can still regulate the sale of alcohol within their borders.
They are just prohibited from applying the law in a manner that is discriminatory to out-of-state vendors.
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
This ruling might be good news for some folks in the long term, but in the short term at least it doesn't help folks in Maryland (and from what I can tell most other states). The existing state laws here don't contradict the USSC requirements.
Useful links:
Wine Institute pages on interstate wine shipping:
http://www.wineinstitute.org/shipwine/
US Wine shipping laws, state-by-state, from Wine Institute data
http://wi.shipcompliant.com/Home.aspx
Status of Maryland state laws is that individual wineries have to pay a $10 annual license fee, and that only allows them to ship wines that aren't otherwise available locally, and then they still have to use the three-tier system (so they have to ship to a distributor/wholesaler who then ships to a retailer near me).
That's a pretty painful process, and it's not obvious that it produces a useful result. (If the wine is sold anywhere in the state, then it's not eligible for this shipping method AFAICT, even if there's nowhere within an hour's drive that stocks the wine...)
Needless to say, it's more likely that I'd have such a wine shipped to a friend in a nearby state, or just find a store in DC/VA with a better selection where I can actually buy that wine. But that doesn't address things like "wine of the month" clubs which might be nice but which simply can't comply with Maryland restrictions.
This case settles a conflict between the interstate commerece clause and the 21st amendment Passed February 20, 1933.
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.
well that alows states to regulate the transport of booze in their borders, but many states NY in particular were using this to bolster local wineries at the expense of out of state whineries
I used to have a cool sig, back when I cared
Actually, no... they were right. Aside from the fact that they are the Supreme Court, the issue was various states' laws about the interstate sale of alcohol. It didn't have a thing to do the with Internet per se... even if the Internet will be the major vehicle for such sales. Those laws allowed for intrastate sales, but not those from out of state. Only Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce (not the states), as such those laws were ruled to be discriminatory and protectionist.
And since we live in a country where things are legal unless they are made illegal by a law, when the law is overturned, those sales are now legal.
"If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research." - Einstein
No actually what it says is that Pennsylvania can't stop delivery of wine from californian distributers or wineries if it lets pennsylvanian distributers or wineries deliver wine. Pennsylvania can outright ban all home delivery of wine, local or from across the country but it can't favor local wine merchants and producers. They can "protect the children" that way if they wish to legislate it.
Now why is it on slashdot? I guess one of the editors likes wine.
I like it because it provides the opportunity to get small volume wines easily from the US and around the world. US wines direct from the winery, and imported wines from small importing and distribution businesses that now don't need large distribution networks to reach the whole nation.
It's fundamental to the way the US economic system was set up that the States are prohibited from acting in a protective manner over their industries with regard to other States. You can't charge a tarriff, for example, when you import cars into California from Detroit. What a State can do is regulate the way something is sold within its borders. It seems to me Section 2 of the 21st Amendment was put there to overcome objections from those States that wanted to remain dry after Prohibition was repealed for everyone else. I think the Supremes are holding them to this. States are still allowed to prohibit mail-order booze -- but they must prohibit all of it, not allow it from in-state producers and not those from out-of-state. Many of these laws (IIRC) were frankly written to protect local wine producers. That ain't allowed.
I agree that Michigan's desired ban seems silly. But if that's what they want, they can have it. The idea that people have the right and responsibility to mostly regulate their own local affairs as they see fit is basic to our federal system. That's why we have a federal government and not a national government. (It's been acting more like the latter than the former lately. That's no reason to wish it could when we want it to -- to, say, force Michigan to allow Internet wine sales -- and similtaneously wish it wouldn't when we don't -- in, for example, the way some "homeland security" issues are being handled.)
And the brethren went away edified.
Section 2 of the 21 amendment allows states to regulate the interstate commerce of wine to some extent (the extent of which was at issue today):
The question then is not whether states can regulate the importation of wine, but the extent of the states' power to declare which importation is "in violation of the laws thereof." The Supreme Court held today that this was intended to reflect the intent of the framers of this amendment that the normal dormant commerce clause analysis was to apply, that is, states can't discriminate against the products of other states but may generally regulate interstate commerce if done without discrimination and for a valid purpose (here, provided by the 21st amendment itself).
IAAL.
sig my booty, check my website
Come out to Denver some time. I believe we have more microbreweries per capita than anywhere else in the US, as well as The Great American Beer Festival (http://www.beertown.org/events/gabf/index.htm).
Derek
Don't Panic...
When I was investigating a start-up, I began to read about all the different liquor laws across the country. Quite frankly, its insane. Here in Texas, certain beverage sizes are restricted to an uncommon size and wholesalers control the entire market. Alcohol producers cannot send product directly to stores it MUST BY LAW go through a distributor then sent on to your local store. Literally there are warehouses where all they do is unload the truck and reload another right there. Thank the Texas legislature and a whole lot of campaign contributions for that one.
s /news.html
If your really interested in learning more about the situation and how crazy it gets you can read this great article from the Houston Press (Houston's Counter Culture Weekly Magazine) here
http://www.houstonpress.com/issues/2005-04-07/new
The Supreme Court has no enforcement arm whatsoever, and relies completely on voluntary compliance with its orders.
The Court can fine the bejesus out of you if you don't comply. I vaguely remember that the Judge who decreed that Nixon had to hand over the Watergate tapes was asked what he would do if Nixon refused. The judge replied that he would fine him enough to essentially bankrupt him.
Not sure why the courts didn't do that in the Jackson case. Maybe because the case involved the State of Georgia stealing land from the Cherokee and nobody, including the courts, really cared.
FreeSpeech.org
I was wondering why Amazon.com bought Wine.com two weeks ago. Looks like that investmet will pay off nicely now.
The Wine developers and fanbase have downplayed the use of "Windows Emulator" in favor of what is now the more common acronym expansion, to avoid confusion by those who think the use of the word "emulator" is confined to CPU emulators. It isn't true, however.
But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
It's not all Baptists. I'm a Baptist and I won't hesitate to tell you that there is nothing wrong with drinking. It's getting drunk that the Bible warns against. In his first letter to Timothy, Paul even tells Timothy that he should drink occasionally for health reasons (1 Tim. 5:23). And then there was the whole turning water into wine thing (John 2:1-10). The Bible clearly views alcohol as something that should be enjoyed, as long as it's in moderation.
Iesus Christus magnus est.
With a cosigner on the account, you can own and use a VISA card online. I would know, as I'm a 15 year old with a VISA card that's linked to my checking account.
I live in Montgomery County, which, indeed, feels like a Mafia-owned town when it comes to wine sales. It's incredible that my trips to Virginia (where my data center is) double as opportunities to get real wine at real prices, but make me a felon as I drive back to my house. From what I can tell, this will make all of that moot (as long as I'm willing to pay freight to my door - I don't know that this will help with TJs!). About. Freaking. Time.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
It was IJ's lawers who made it possible to take this case to the SCOTUS and to win the case.
h tml
http://ij.org/economic_liberty/ny_wine/5_16_05pr.
The argument for red/purple grape juice has to do with the higher antioxidant levels apparently present, but you can get higher levels in artichokes, beans, and other things. Lycopene is another buzz topic, so if you want lots of that eat tomatoes and watermelon.
Basically the best health advice has always been to take things in moderation, and to eat healthy and exercise. I find it amazing the power of will millions of people have to stick to crazy diets and programs when all they need to do is adhere to the above advice.
Goverments are not good nannies.
What's your alternative?
Granted governments are imperfect, but look at the record. You use the example of gasoline and paint. What is no longer in either of these? Lead! It wasn't enlightened self-interest which took the lead out saving millions of kids from brain-damage.
Or take the case of auto accidents. For decades Detroit couldn't sell safe cars. Few manufacturers tried and they failed. But 10s of thousands of people were being killed every year. So "Nanny" had to step in. The results were immediate and today with many more cars on the road, we have fewer deaths than we did in the '60s.
Examples are numerous. Sure some people are still going to try to win a Darwin Award, but don't blame the government just because it can't ensure the safety of every citizen. Remember, dead people have no rights.