If this NY Times analysis of the recent arguments before the Supreme Court is accurate, state laws against wine shipments direct to consumers could be one more bit of Blue Laws past.
The justices appeared notably unmoved by the arguments offered by New York and Michigan in defense of laws that prohibit the direct shipment of wine from other states while permitting in-state wineries to ship their products to their customers’ homes.
The 50 states are divided almost in half on a question that has grown increasingly contentious in the age of Internet advertising and sales. Twenty-six states permit direct shipment from out-of-state wineries; 24 ban it. The federal appeals courts are divided, too; one court upheld New York while another, almost simultaneously, declared Michigan’s law unconstitutional.
[…] Nor did the justices demonstrate more patience with the fallback, that if the 21st Amendment did not simply obliterate the Commerce Clause, the laws could nonetheless be justified by the twin goals of preventing minors’ access to alcohol and ensuring that the states could collect taxes from out-of-state shippers.
Kathleen Sullivan, arguing for the 13 consumers who successfully challenged the Michigan law in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, pointed out that Michigan permits its 40 in-state wineries and 7,500 liquor retailers to make home deliveries. That showed “a pattern of exceptions that belies any implication” that the state’s real goal was to protect minors, she said.
Ms. Sullivan, a professor and former dean at the Stanford Law School, said several states that permit direct shipments from out-of-state wineries tracked the taxes owed by requiring the wineries to obtain permits and report monthly.
Well, duh.
It’s about time for this particular set of protectionist laws to take a fall.
(Posted by CronDave, story via BoingBoing)