Austin Federal Judge Overturns Law Banning Walmart from Selling Booze in Texas
In a decision that could soon allow Walmart to stock its retail shelves with whiskey, an Austin federal judge has struck down a Texas law prohibiting…
March 21, 2018 at 02:10 PM
3 minute read
In a decision that could soon allow Walmart to stock its retail shelves with whiskey, an Austin federal judge has struck down a Texas law prohibiting public corporations from obtaining permits to sell hard liquor in the state.
U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman ruled that the section of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code, which prevents public corporations from obtaining so-called “package store permits,” violates the dormant commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. That doctrine forbids states from enacting laws that discriminate against interstate commerce.
Arkansas-based Walmart filed a suit challenging the law by suing the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission to prevent it from enforcing the public corporation ban. The Texas Package Stores Association, a trade organization that represents Texas owned liquor retailers who advocated for the public corporation ban law, later intervened in the case.
In his ruling, Pitman noted that the public corporation ban was passed by the Texas Legislature in the 1995 after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit had struck down a previous Texas law that required applicants to be a resident of the state in order to a obtain a package store permit.
“The credible evidence demonstrates that the public corporation ban disproportionately affects out-of-state companies. The law disproportionately burdens out-of-state companies' ability to enter the Texas retail liquor market,” Pitman wrote.
“Certainly, the statute has the effect of preventing both some in-state and some out-of-state firms from entering the Texas retail liquor market. Yet, only a small percentage of the in-state firms that would otherwise serve this market are prevented from doing so by the public corporation ban,” Pitman wrote. “On the other hand, a very large percentage of the out-of-state companies that would otherwise serve this market are blocked.”
While Pitman concluded that the purpose of the public corporation ban was to discriminate against out-of-state companies, he ruled that the law did not have a discriminatory effect.
“The record indicates some Texas companies are blocked from selling liquor in the state, and, conversely, at least one significant out-of-state company has successfully entered the Texas market,” Pitman wrote. “Thus, the court finds that while the public corporation ban was enacted with discriminatory purpose, it does not have a discriminatory effect as defined by controlling precedent.”
Pitman stayed his order preventing the TABC from enforcing the public corporation ban for 60 days, pending a motion for appeal.
Lance Lively, executive director of the Texas Package Stores Association, said his organization would appeal the decision.
“The Texas Package Stores Association is disappointed in the trial court's decision to overturn decades of Texas law regulating the sale of liquor in Texas. The Texas Legislature put a system in place to ensure safe access to alcoholic beverages in Texas, and that system has worked for over 80 years,” Lively said. “We will appeal the trial court's decision and continue to fight for family-owned liquor store owners against the world's largest corporate entities that seek to inflate their profits by upending sensible state laws that protect both consumers and small businesses.”
Neal Manne, the managing partner in Houston's Susman Godfrey who represents Walmart in the case, said he was extremely happy with the decision but declined to comment further because he was not authorized to speak by his client. A spokesperson from the Texas Attorney General's Office, which represents the TABC in the case, also declined to comment.
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 AllGreenberg Traurig Initiates String of Suits Following JPMorgan Chase's 'Infinite Money Glitch'
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Guarantees Are Back, Whether Law Firms Want to Talk About Them or Not
- 4Trump Files $10B Suit Against CBS in Amarillo Federal Court
- 5Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
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