Interesting People mailing list archives
Granholm v. Heald - Online Alcohol Sales
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 12:37:43 -0400
Begin forwarded message: From: Robert Cannon <rcannon100 () YAHOO COM> Date: May 16, 2005 12:09:47 PM EDT To: CYBERTELECOM-L () LISTSERV AOL COM Subject: Granholm v. Heald - Online Alcohol SalesReply-To: Telecom Regulation & the Internet <CYBERTELECOM- L () LISTSERV AOL COM>
Cybertelecom: Ecommerce: Alcohol http://www.cybertelecom.org/ecom/alcohol.htm =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Granholm v. Healdhttp://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 () cybertelecom org ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
Current thread:
- Granholm v. Heald - Online Alcohol Sales David Farber (May 16)