Supreme Court Is Asked if Retailers Can Ship Alcohol Directly to Consumers
The United States has a long tradition of regulating alcohol sales, and a fresh case before the Supreme Court tests the limits of state control, writes attorney Louis Terminello.
February 04, 2019 at 01:42 PM
5 minute read
Alcohol beverage is one of the most regulated commodities in the United States. In fact, it is the only commodity that has appeared specifically in two amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
In simple terms, the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment, ended Prohibition and granted the states wide authority to regulate the sale and service of beverage alcohol within their borders.
Legal issues involving the service and sale of beverage alcohol are often heard in state courts. On rare occasion, such matters make their way through the federal court system and ultimately to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In 2005, one such case, Granholm v. Heald, changed the way wine consumers could purchase wine. Under certain circumstances, the court concluded that wineries were permitted to ship their wines directly to consumers through interstate commerce, bypassing the entrenched three-tier system. Prior to Granholm, direct-to-consumer sales by manufacturers across state lines was impermissible.
Wine aficionados rejoiced. After a wine country tour of Napa or Sonoma, wine lovers could now order a favorite label from the comfort of their home in a far-off state and have that wine shipped to their front door. Once unavailable wines now became available for drinking enjoyment far from the wine maker's estate.
Moreover, retailers around the U.S. took Granholm to mean that they too could ship to consumers across state lines. The court never articulated such a position but retail sellers of alcohol began to open up shop by creating web portals for ordering and shipment. Alcohol beverage wholesalers reacted and put pressure on state legislatures to curtail this activity. States began to enact restrictive measures designed to prevent common carriers from delivering alcoholic beverages directly to consumers.
Currently, just north of a dozen states permit common carriers to deliver to consumers directly (with much regulation in place). The dream of unrestricted wine enjoyment by consumers began to appear and taste like an outdated vintage.
Fast forward to today. The court recently heard arguments in the matter of Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Association v. Zachary W. Blair, which most certainly will have implications in the way consumers purchase alcoholic beverages.
The facts of Blair are simple enough. Total Wine & More, one of the largest retailers of alcoholic beverages in the U.S., desired to open brick-and-mortar retail locations in the state of Tennessee. Tennessee retailers opposed the large competitor's market entry and pointed to state legislation that permitted only state residents to be licensed as retailers of alcoholic beverages.
Total Wine pushed back against the constitutionally of the law, and now the issue is before the Supreme Court.
At its core, Blair asks the question of whether the 21st Amendment trumps the commerce clause and permits the state to discriminate against out of state residents from opening brick-and-mortar stores within its borders.
By extension, Blair surely asks the question whether states will have the authority to limit on-line sales by retailers through interstate commerce by enforcing residency requirements for internet sellers as well.
The availability of wine, beer and spirits to consumers is heavily dictated by the three-tier system: manufacturers must sell to distributors, who can only sell to retailers, who can only sell to consumers, with limited exceptions. Indirect consumer purchasing decisions in many instances are made by wholesaler executives and state regulators prior to alcohol beverage brands making their way to the retail shelf. Blair clearly will have the effect of either limiting or expanding consumer choice.
In support of limiting Tennessee's ability to enforce residency requirements, 81 wine consumers from around the United States filed an amicus curiae brief with the court. They argued that the court should uphold the principle of the commerce clause and prohibit Tennessee from maintaining residency requirements for holders of retail liquor licenses.
In the opening paragraphs of the brief, they state: “This brief is written on behalf of 81 wine consumers who live in twenty-five different states. They share a common frustration that they cannot find the wines they want locally and are prevented from buying them from out-of-state sellers.”
Consumers of hard-to-find wine, beer and spirits are frustrated by the unavailability of their preferred drinks. Advocates of the three-tier system, namely wholesalers, are pushing back against the concept of direct-to-consumer sales by retailers.
State legislators and alcohol regulators are on standby and may or may not align their laws with direct to consumer sales. Retailers are waiting in the wings to exploit this potential opportunity. Drinks lovers across the United States and in the state of Florida, where this author resides, are waiting to exercise their consumer choice and click on the “order” button of an online retailer that may be in business many thousands of miles away.
Louis J. Terminello is a Miami partner, chair of the hospitality, alcohol and leisure industry group and a member of the firm management committee at Greenspoon Marder.
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 Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDivided State Court Reinstates Dispute Over Replacement Vehicles Fees
5 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute read'They Got All Bent Out of Shape:' Parkland Lawyers Clash With Each Other
Courts of Appeal Conflicted Over Rule 1.442(c)(3) When Claims for Damages Involve a Husband and Wife
Trending Stories
- 1Formal Charges Filed Against Judge Accused of Helping Defendant Escape ICE Detention
- 2Top 10 Predicted Business and Human Rights Issues for 2025
- 3$7.5M in Punitive Damages Awarded in Product Liability Case
- 4Does My Company Really Need a Generative AI Policy?
- 5'This Is a Watershed Moment': Daniel's Law Overcomes Major Hurdle
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250