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. ... 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.

...

[In another case before the Court] 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. ...

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. ...

... The Twenty-first Amendment's aim was to allow States to maintain an effective and uniform system for controlling liquor by regulating its transportation, importation, and use. It did not give States the authority to pass nonuniform laws in order to discriminate against out-of-state goods, a privilege they never enjoyed. ...

... [T]his Court must still consider whether either State's regime "advances a legitimate local purpose that cannot be adequately served by reasonable nondiscriminatory alternatives." ... The States provide little evidence for their claim that purchasing wine over the Internet by minors is a problem. ... The States' tax evasion justification is also insufficient. ... Other rationales-facilitating orderly market conditions, protecting public health and safety, and ensuring regulatory accountability-can also be achieved through the alternative of an evenhanded licensing requirement."

We hope you find our Public Edition to be useful.

But we want you to know that our best and most useful material is provided only by subscription.

Our Enhanced Subscriber Edition turns you into a far more efficient, more effective user of the vast legal and governmental resources scattered across the Web as well as those that comprise the heart of Minnesota-specific legal and governmental resources and law-practice related knowledge.

Call us or contact us through the site to learn how your firm or organization can put the full power of our Minnesota Law Practice Web^SM at your service.