US Supreme Court rules state liquor laws are unconstitutional - Sam Bloch, The New Food Economy:
June 27, 2019 - "Generally speaking, the Commerce Clause of the Constitution allows for most foods to cross state lines. That’s not the case with liquor, though. Most states require salesmen to ... hav[e] lived within their boundaries for a given number of years. But ... [y]esterday, the Supreme Court decided that those residency provisions are unconstitutional, ruling against a Tennessee trade association by a 7-2 vote....
"The case began in 2016, when Total Wine, a Maryland-based liquor giant, and Affluere Investments, a small business owned by Doug and Mary Ketchum, each applied for licenses to sell liquor in Tennessee.... After the Tennessee Alcoholic Beverage Commission (TABC) approved their petitions, the Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Association (TWSRA) appealed, saying that neither applicant was legally allowed to have a license. Tennessee is one of 35 states with a residency requirement for selling liquor. In this case, the trade association pointed out, neither applicant had been living in the state for two years. Additionally, the law requires 10 years of residency to renew the license, and for all company stakeholders to be residents, too.
"Lower courts found that Tennessee’s law was unconstitutional, but TWSRA took their suit against Russell F. Thomas, the commission’s executive director, all the way to the Supreme Court. The association said their law is protected by the second section of the 21st Amendment, which overturned prohibition. That particular section gives states the options to stop the import of liquor across their borders.
"And again, it’s failed to persuade the court. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority of the court, said the state’s two-year residency requirement, which doesn’t have an effect on public health or safety, is unconstitutional, and a violation of interstate commerce laws.... The [21st Amendment] clause 'is not a license to impose all manner of protectionist restrictions on commerce in alcoholic beverages'....
"Tom Wark, executive director of the National Association of Wine Retailers, a trade association that had submitted an amicus brief, cheered the decision. 'State alcohol laws that discriminate against out-of-state retailers for the purposes of protecting in-state interests are unconstitutional and not protected by the Twenty-First Amendment. The decision is a historic win for both free trade and wine consumers across the country,' he said in a press statement."
Read more: https://newfoodeconomy.org/supreme-court-tennessee-liquor-laws-unconstitutional/
'via Blog this'
June 27, 2019 - "Generally speaking, the Commerce Clause of the Constitution allows for most foods to cross state lines. That’s not the case with liquor, though. Most states require salesmen to ... hav[e] lived within their boundaries for a given number of years. But ... [y]esterday, the Supreme Court decided that those residency provisions are unconstitutional, ruling against a Tennessee trade association by a 7-2 vote....
"The case began in 2016, when Total Wine, a Maryland-based liquor giant, and Affluere Investments, a small business owned by Doug and Mary Ketchum, each applied for licenses to sell liquor in Tennessee.... After the Tennessee Alcoholic Beverage Commission (TABC) approved their petitions, the Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Association (TWSRA) appealed, saying that neither applicant was legally allowed to have a license. Tennessee is one of 35 states with a residency requirement for selling liquor. In this case, the trade association pointed out, neither applicant had been living in the state for two years. Additionally, the law requires 10 years of residency to renew the license, and for all company stakeholders to be residents, too.
"Lower courts found that Tennessee’s law was unconstitutional, but TWSRA took their suit against Russell F. Thomas, the commission’s executive director, all the way to the Supreme Court. The association said their law is protected by the second section of the 21st Amendment, which overturned prohibition. That particular section gives states the options to stop the import of liquor across their borders.
"And again, it’s failed to persuade the court. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority of the court, said the state’s two-year residency requirement, which doesn’t have an effect on public health or safety, is unconstitutional, and a violation of interstate commerce laws.... The [21st Amendment] clause 'is not a license to impose all manner of protectionist restrictions on commerce in alcoholic beverages'....
"Tom Wark, executive director of the National Association of Wine Retailers, a trade association that had submitted an amicus brief, cheered the decision. 'State alcohol laws that discriminate against out-of-state retailers for the purposes of protecting in-state interests are unconstitutional and not protected by the Twenty-First Amendment. The decision is a historic win for both free trade and wine consumers across the country,' he said in a press statement."
Read more: https://newfoodeconomy.org/supreme-court-tennessee-liquor-laws-unconstitutional/
'via Blog this'
No comments:
Post a Comment