[IP] Granholm v. Heald - Online Alcohol Sales
Begin forwarded message:
From: Robert Cannon <rcannon100@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: May 16, 2005 12:09:47 PM EDT
To: CYBERTELECOM-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Granholm v. Heald - Online Alcohol Sales
Reply-To: Telecom Regulation & the Internet <CYBERTELECOM-
L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cybertelecom: Ecommerce: Alcohol
http://www.cybertelecom.org/ecom/alcohol.htm
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Granholm v. Heald
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/27apr20050800/
www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/03-1116.pdf
Michigan and New York regulate the sale and
importation of wine through three-tier systems
requiring separate licenses for producers,
wholesalers, and retailers. These schemes allow
in-state, but not out-of-state, wineries to make
direct sales to consumers. This differential treatment
explicitly discriminates against interstate commerce
by limiting the emerging and significant direct-sale
business. Influenced
by an increasing number of small wineries and a
decreasing number of wine wholesalers, direct sales
have grown because small wineries may not produce
enough wine or have sufficient consumer demand for
their wine to make it economical for wholesalers to
carry their products. In Nos. 03–1116 and 03–1120,
Michigan residents, joined by an intervening
out-of-state winery, sued Michigan officials, claiming
that the State’s laws violate the Commerce Clause. The
State and an intervening in-state wholesalers
association responded that the direct-shipment ban was
a valid exercise of Michigan’s power under the
Twenty-first Amendment. The District Court sustained
the scheme, but the Sixth Circuit reversed, rejecting
the argument
that the Twenty-first Amendment immunizes state liquor
laws from Commerce Clause strictures and holding that
there was no showing that the State could not meet its
proffered policy objectives through nondiscriminatory
means. In No. 03–1274, out-of-state wineries and their
New York customers filed suit against state officials,
seeking, inter alia, a declaration that the State’s
direct-shipment laws violate the Commerce Clause.
State liquor wholesalers and retailers’
representatives intervened in support of the State.
The District
Court granted the plaintiffs summary judgment, but the
Second Circuit reversed, holding that New York’s laws
fell within the ambit of its powers under the
Twenty-first Amendment. Here, respondents in the
Michigan cases and petitioners in the New York case
are referred
to as the wineries, while the opposing parties are
referred to as the States.
Held: Both States’ laws discriminate against
interstate commerce in violation of the Commerce
Clause, and that discrimination is neither authorized
nor permitted by the Twenty-first Amendment.
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
Cybertelecom :: An educational non profit dedicated to raising
awareness of and participation in Federal Internet Policy.
www.cybertelecom.org cannon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/