Posted by Jonathan Adler:
Post-*Granholm* Challenge to Tennesee Wine Regs:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_10_19-2008_10_25.shtml#1224858447
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit gave a little bit of
good news to Tennessee oenophiles today in Jelovsek v. Bredesen. Judge
Norris, writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, summarized the
opinion as follows:
These consolidated cases ask the question whether Tennessee laws
governing the wine industry violate the dormant commerce clause of
the Constitution. This is one of several lawsuits filed across the
country after the Supreme Court invalidated wine-related laws in
Michigan and New York which allowed only in-state wineries to sell
and ship wine directly to consumers. Granholm v. Heald, 544 U.S.
460 (2005). . . .
The district court granted defendants� Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) motion
for judgment on the pleadings. Jelovsek v. Bresden, 482 F. Supp. 2d
1013, 1023 (E.D. Tenn. 2007). The district court concluded that
since both in- and out-of-state wineries are prohibited from
selling and shipping wine directly to Tennessee consumers, this
case is distinguishable from Granholm. The invalidated laws in
Granholm denied only out-of-state wineries the ability to ship to
consumers, a disparate treatment that the Supreme Court ruled
unconstitutional.
We agree with the district court that the Tennessee shipping
restrictions are distinguishable from those struck down in Granholm
and affirm the district court�s judgment as to the Tennessee ban on
the direct shipment of alcohol to consumers, including wine.
However, the wineries make a broader challenge to the Tennessee
regulatory scheme for alcohol, specifically wine. As discussed
below, we conclude that certain other challenged laws are
discriminatory on their face, and thus vacate the district court
judgment as to those laws, and remand for further proceedings.
_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
