Here is a link to the opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/o...18pdf/18-96_5i36.pdf
Tennessee had some very restrictive laws about who could get a liquor license. One had to be a resident of Tennessee for 2 years, and there were further requirements. The other requirements were held to be unconstitutional (violating the commerce clause) by the lower courts. The only thing that went up on appeal to the S. Ct was the 2 year residency requirement. This means that the other things were determined to be unconstitutional by lower courts and that decision is binding in Tennessee. Other courts would likely, but not necessarily agree.
With regard to the 2 year rule, the S. Ct found that this too was an impermissible and unconstitutional violation of the commerce clause. The arguments of the Tennessee alcohol beverage association were truly silly, and the S. Ct. dispensed with them quickly. (57 page opinion, which is "quick" in my profession...... never understood why they call 30+ page documents "briefs").
Anyway, for sure this is a victory for Total Wine, and for large distributors and for consumers. It is a loss for the mom and pop liquor stores, but I suppose in small towns the mom and pop stores will not really be affected. Here in Baltimore, Total Wine has a large outlet, with some decent selections, but nothing truly outstanding. It's only 2 miles from my office so I go there periodically. One or two small liquor stores have closed, but many small stores have loyal followings, they are closer to many consumers, and they make a bunch of money on the sale of lottery tickets.
(Remember Kavanaugh's testimony at his confirmation hearing. "I liked beer. I still like beer."... So far as I know, he was silent on wine).
Incidentally, there have been some other interesting S. Ct. decisions lately. In one or two, Justice Kavanaugh sided with the liberals. In one, Gorsuch sided with the liberals. In one really important case, Roberts sided with the liberals, crushing the conservative's desire to overturn and limit the scope of federal regulations.
Kavanaugh in particular wrote the majority opinion in Flowers, reversing a criminal conviction for a guy in either Mississippi or Alabama (I forgot which). The Defendant is a Black man. The prosecution struck potential jurors solely on the basis of race, and has done so in the SIX prior trials of this guy. Kavanaugh was really outraged at the racial bias here. What is remarkable is that this man was arrested in 1997, and has been in jail since, since he can't make bail or there is no bail. So, he's served about 23 years in jail without a conviction that has withstood appellate scrutiny.