This is good news. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court has overturned state laws banning the shipment of wine over state lines. 24 states have laws that treat direct shipments of wine from winemakers out of state to customers in that state differently than shipments from winemakers within the state. 24 states had laws either banning or restricting such sales and they are now overturned. I've not read the decision, but it's worth noting that the majority opinion was joined by a rather odd collection - Kennedy, Scalia, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer. That's two fairly reliable liberals, two moderates and the staunchly conservative Scalia. One might even suspect that the Italian Scalia merely knows how difficult it is to get a good Chianti or Pinot Grigio from Virginia or Maryland, whichever he lives in.
- Log in to post comments
I thought the same thing about how the votes fell.
Maybe Scalia should have recused himself!
Indeed, having lived in VA myself for a few years, I was appalled at the invasiveness of Virginia's Alcholic Beverage Control laws and state run monopoly. Supposedly (I never tried) it was illegal to run into DC to purchase alcoholic beverages, bypassing the state monopoly. Rumor had it that VA cops occasionally followed people into DC and nabbed them in the act. Don't know if it is true, and I wonder if it would even be legal.
One rare plus point for VA's alchohol laws: you could actually buy your wine alongside your groceries, something unheard of in, say, Colorado. But California set the best standard: any legal alcoholic beverage could be sold at your local grocery store -- no liquor stores, state monopoly stores, package stores necessary (although liquor specialty stores do exist).
The more I read about this case, the more I think I agree with the dissent. The 21st amendment creates an exception to the commerce clause. There maybe some background to the amdendment that refutes this opinion. I haven't read the case yet.
When i was a whole lot younger, it was illegal to purchase Coors beer outside of Colorado. There were laws among several states, where a brewery must be in a state in order for that brand to be sold in that state. Thus, Budweiser and Miller Brewing spent great capital sums building breweries all over the place. Slowly these laws were overturned, and one can buy nearly any brand of beer, made in any brewery in the world, anywhere in the US--yes sometimes only in state stores in some states. CA monopolization of the wine industry notwithstanding, it is good that these sorts of laws that restrict sales in some places of some wines, are being struck down. Now if we could have a society and culture that didn't need increased wine sales to buy us out of an economic pit.
The more I read about this case, the more I think I agree with the dissent. The 21st amendment creates an exception to the commerce clause. There maybe some background to the amdendment that refutes this opinion. I haven't read the case yet.
I don't agree Reed. While I agree states certainly have the right to either allow or disallow such transactions (direct wine sales) as is their wont, I don't think they can allow it for citizens from within their state while denying it to those outside. But like you, I'd have to read a bit more of the specifics to get a fuller picture. That view may change.
I recall visiting my brother when he was an undergraduate student at UV Charlottesville. When he and his fellow underage students wanted some booze, they'd head for the nearest State liquor store. Loitering nearby would be someone old enough to buy booze, so they'd give him a few extra bucks to go in and get what they wanted. They unseemingly referred to this practice as "rent a n---er." In any case, so much for Virginia's attempt to prevent liquor sales to minors.