Wine bottles. Photo: Gina Passarella/ALM

New Jersey laws barring wine shipments to consumers by out-of-state vendors could face a shake-up in light of a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

The justices struck down a Tennessee law in June that imposed a residency requirement on applicants seeking retail liquor licenses. The court's 7-2 decision is expected to ease the way for plaintiffs in a suit seeking to overturn a New Jersey law that prohibits direct shipments of wine to consumers by out-of-state wine retailers, while allowing such shipments by in-state businesses.

A civil rights action filed July 3 seeks a declaratory judgment that New Jersey's ban on shipments from out-of-state wine sellers violates the Commerce Clause and the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, Section 2, because it denies nonresident wine merchants the privilege of engaging in their occupation in New Jersey on the same terms enjoyed by the state's citizens.

The suit was filed by three New Jersey residents who are wine collectors but are unable to purchase wine from out-of-state retailers and have it sent to their homes. The plaintiffs also include a wine store in New York City called The Wine Cellarage and its owner, who ship wine to customers nationwide but are unable to provide that service to consumers in New Jersey. Gov. Phil Murphy, Attorney General Gurbir Grewal and Alcoholic Beverage Control Division director James Graziano are the defendants.

“I expect a bitter fight in New Jersey. I don't think they're going to lay down,” said Robert Epstein of Epstein Cohen Seif & Porter in Indianapolis, who filed the suit along with attorneys from Winne Banta Basralian & Kahn in Hackensack. The recent Supreme Court ruling in the Tennessee bars discrimination against out-of-state wine sellers, but other states where similar challenges have been brought have fought hard against revisions to their laws, said Epstein.

A spokesman for the Attorney General's Office, Lee Moore, said he could not comment on pending litigation.

In the Supreme Court case, Justice Samuel Alito said in writing for the majority that the 21st Amendment, which repealed prohibition, does not provide a license to impose protectionist restrictions on the sale of alcoholic beverages. Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, wrote in a dissent that state residency requirements on who may sell alcoholic beverages help ensure that retailers comply with local laws and norms.

The lawyers in the present case previously brought another case in New Jersey that secured the right of out-of-state wineries to ship their products to the state's residents. That case went on for more than a decade. But local wine retailers are expected to resist any change in the law that would expose them to competition from retailers elsewhere.