A little reseacrh revelead this page, maintained by a law professor at the University of Indiana. He's one of the attorney's in the lead case, Granholm v. Heald, now pending before the Supremes. It is filled with lots of interesting documents, including briefs, etc.

"Well, the world needs ditch-diggers too."
quote:
Originally posted by Brettay:
This could be either really good or really bad!


I agree. This is not a "slam-dunk" win for interstate direct shipment, just because Supreme Court is agreeing to hear the case.

Prediction without reading any of the links from G&N (thanks, will save for later) -- Unfortunately, states win, as specificity of 21st amendment, giving states right to regulate alcohol sales, trumps commerce clause.
I think the issue is a little more complex. What they have to decide is whether states have absolute control over alcohol within their borders, or whether they can only have control for purposes of prohibition. What the VA and TX court decisions said was that the laws against out of state shipping were obviously for purposes of economic protection, not prohibition (they permited instate wineries to ship to customers instate) and thus the commerce clause was controlling. In NY, no winery was permitted to ship, regardless of where it was (i.e., NY wineries can't ship to NY residents).

But purely from a logical point of view, if it is legal to buy and drink wine in the state, why should the state have the power to say that some producers can't sell within the state. That is what the commerce clause trys to prevent, restrictions on interstate commerce.

When in doubt, open another bottle.

Add Reply

Likes (0)
×
×
×
×