Granholm v. Heald

Last updated
Granholm v. Heald
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued December 7, 2004
Decided May 16, 2005
Full case nameJennifer M. Granholm, Governor of Michigan, et al., Petitioners v. Eleanor Heald, et al.; Michigan Beer & Wine Wholesalers Association, Petitioner v. Eleanor Heald, et al.; Juanita Swedenburg, et al., Petitioners v. Edward D. Kelly, Chairman, New York Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control, State Liquor Authority, et al.
Citations544 U.S. 460 ( more )
125 S. Ct. 1885; 161 L. Ed. 2d 796; 73 U.S.L.W. 4321; 05 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4068; 2005 Daily Journal D.A.R. 5561; 18 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 263; 2005 U.S. LEXIS 4174
Case history
PriorHeald v. Engler, 342 F.3d 517 (6th Cir. 2003); rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc denied (Nov. 4, 2003); cert. granted, 541 U.S. 1062 (2004). Swedenburg v. Kelly, 358 F.3d 223 (2d Cir. 2004); cert. granted, 541 U.S. 1062 (2004).
Holding
The 21st Amendment grant of regulatory power to the states over alcoholic beverages does not abrogate the Dormant Commerce Clause. State laws prohibiting direct sales of wine and other alcoholic beverages by out-of-state wineries and other producers and permitting such sales by in-state producers are unconstitutional. Sixth Circuit ruling striking Michigan statute affirmed.
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens  · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
David Souter  · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg  · Stephen Breyer
Case opinions
MajorityKennedy, joined by Scalia, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
DissentStevens, joined by O'Connor
DissentThomas, joined by Rehnquist, Stevens, O'Connor
Laws applied
Dormant Commerce Clause; U.S. Const. amend. XXI

Granholm v. Heald, 544 U.S. 460 (2005), was a court case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in a 5–4 decision that ruled that laws in New York and Michigan that permitted in-state wineries to ship wine directly to consumers but prohibited out-of-state wineries from doing the same were unconstitutional. The case was unusual because the arguments centered on the rarely-invoked Twenty-First Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1933, which ended Prohibition in the United States.

Contents

Background

Granholm v. Heald was the conclusion of an eight-year fight by small wineries against such laws. Although direct shipments to consumers constituted only about 2% of wine sales in the United States (whose total sales were $21.6 billion in 2003), direct sales were thought to be an opportunity for growth.[ citation needed ] Laws varied from state to state, but typically, a winery could distribute wine only by selling it to a wholesaler in the state. Retailers were then required to purchase from the wholesalers. That made the large wholesalers very powerful in the wine industry since if wholesalers in New York decided not to purchase wine from a particular winery, that winery would be completely shut out of the New York market.

Arguments

The court case, which was a consolidation of two separate lawsuits, pitted the Dormant Commerce Clause doctrine, inferred from the Constitution's Article I, against Section 2 of the Twenty-First Amendment, which reads:

The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

The Commerce Clause of Article 1 of the Constitution grants Congress the power:

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.

In turn, the Dormant Commerce Clause (DCC) has been inferred from the Commerce Clause. The DCC is a doctrine that had evolved over many decisions of the US Supreme Court that states do not have the power to enact anticompetitive laws that discriminate against sellers in other states without the permission of Congress.

Eleanor Heald, a wine collector, and eleven other plaintiffs, argued that Michigan's Liquor Control Code violated the DCC by making it a misdemeanor for an out-of-state winery to ship wine directly to a Michigan resident but did not prohibit direct shipping by in-state wineries. The same argument was made in a separate case against the government of New York State by Juanita Swedenburg and other owners of out-of-state wineries.

In both cases, the state governments of Michigan and New York had argued that Section 2 of the Twenty-First Amendment granted them carte blanche to regulate liquor. One of their justifications for the laws was that by regulating out-of-state wineries that way, they might be able to hinder the shipment of alcohol to underage minors, which would serve a valid state purpose.

The government of New York had won in the federal Second Circuit Court, and the government of Michigan had lost in the Sixth Circuit. The cases were consolidated and heard together by the US Supreme Court.

In a 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court decided the states' laws were unconstitutional. The context of the Twenty-First Amendment was to return to the status quo that had existed before Prohibition. The Court made it clear that states have the power to regulate alcohol however they wished, including banning alcoholic beverages entirely within the state. Before Prohibition, the states did not have the power to violate the Dormant Commerce Clause, and the Twenty-First Amendment was not intended to grant them that power.

Aftermath

Michigan's liquor control board announced that it would recommend to the state government to ban all direct wine sales to consumers, which would join the 15 other states that currently ban all such sales.

New York Governor George Pataki unveiled a bill that would limit each winery's direct sales to consumers to two cases per month per consumer. As a Wall Street Journal editorial noted,[ citation needed ] two cases per month is a relatively large amount of wine for a consumer, but the measure was intended to reduce competition for New York alcohol distributors. New York State enacted a bill in 2006 that allows direct shipment of wine to consumers on a reciprocal basis. New York residents can purchase wine that is shipped from a state that grants New York wineries the same rights. [1]

Since the ruling, many more states have allowed direct shipping from wineries. According to the Wine Institute, a public policy advocacy association of California wineries, 37 states permitted at least some form of direct shipping from wineries to consumers, as of July 2010. [2] Different states have enacted different regulations. An editorial article on the commercial wine selling web site Appellation America states that many of the conditions in those regulations are so complex or so expensive that they discourage wineries from complying. [3]

In March 2011, a bill was introduced in the US House of Representatives that would explicitly allow states to regulate alcohol products from outside of the state differently from those produced within the state. [4]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Twenty-first Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1933 amendment repealing the 18th amendment, thereby ending prohibition of alcohol in the US

The Twenty-first Amendment to the United States Constitution repealed the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which had mandated nationwide prohibition on alcohol. The Twenty-first Amendment was proposed by the 72nd Congress on February 20, 1933, and was ratified by the requisite number of states on December 5, 1933. It is unique among the 27 amendments of the U.S. Constitution for being the only one to repeal a prior amendment, as well as being the only amendment to have been ratified by state ratifying conventions.

The Commerce Clause describes an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution. The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "[to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." Courts and commentators have tended to discuss each of these three areas of commerce as a separate power granted to Congress. It is common to see the individual components of the Commerce Clause referred to under specific terms: the Foreign Commerce Clause, the Interstate Commerce Clause, and the Indian Commerce Clause.

United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000), is a U.S. Supreme Court decision that held that parts of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 were unconstitutional because they exceeded the powers granted to the US Congress under the Commerce Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Along with United States v. Lopez (1995), it was part of a series of Rehnquist Court cases that limited Congress's powers under the Commerce Clause.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Institute for Justice</span> American libertarian non-profit public interest law firm

The Institute for Justice (IJ) is a libertarian non-profit public interest law firm in the United States. It has litigated eight cases before the United States Supreme Court dealing with eminent domain, interstate commerce, public financing for elections, school vouchers, tax credits for private school tuition, civil asset forfeiture, and residency requirements for liquor license. The organization was founded in 1990. As of June 2016, it employed a staff of 95 in Arlington, Virginia and seven offices across the United States. Its 2016 budget was $20 million.

The three-tier system of alcohol distribution is the system for distributing alcoholic beverages set up in the United States after the repeal of Prohibition. The three tiers are importers or producers; distributors; and retailers. The basic structure of the system is that producers can sell their products only to wholesale distributors who then sell to retailers, and only retailers may sell to consumers. Producers include brewers, wine makers, distillers and importers. The three-tier system is intended to prohibit tied houses and prevent "disorderly marketing conditions."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Wine of the United States</span> Alcoholic beverage made from grapes grown in United States of America

Wine has been produced in the United States since the 1500s, with the first widespread production beginning in New Mexico in 1628. Today, wine production is undertaken in all fifty states, with California producing 84 percent of all US wine. The North American continent is home to several native species of grape, including Vitis labrusca, Vitis riparia, Vitis rotundifolia, and Vitis vulpina, but the wine-making industry is based almost entirely on the cultivation of the European Vitis vinifera, which was introduced by European settlers. With more than 1,100,000 acres (4,500 km2) under vine, the United States is the fourth-largest wine producing country in the world, after Italy, Spain, and France.

Kidd v. Pearson, 128 U.S. 1 (1888), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a distinction between manufacturing and commerce meant that an Iowa law that prohibited the manufacture of alcohol was constitutional as it did not conflict with the power of the US Congress to regulate interstate commerce.

New Jersey wine

The production of wine in New Jersey has increased significantly in the last thirty years with the opening of new wineries. Beginning in 1981, the state legislature relaxed Prohibition-era restrictions and crafted new laws to facilitate the growth of the industry and provide new opportunities for winery licenses. Today, New Jersey wineries are crafting wines that have earned recognition for their quality from critics, industry leaders, and in national and international competitions. As of 2019, New Jersey currently has 51 licensed and operating wineries with several more prospective wineries in various stages of development.

Webb–Kenyon Act

The Webb–Kenyon Act was a 1913 law of the United States that regulated the interstate transport of alcoholic beverages. It was meant to provide federal support for the prohibition efforts of individual states in the face of charges that state regulation of alcohol usurped the federal government's exclusive constitutional right to regulate interstate commerce.

Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 (1992), was a United States Supreme Court ruling, since overturned, concerning use tax. The decision effectively prevented states from collecting any sales tax from retail purchases made over the Internet or other e-Commerce route unless the seller had a physical presence in the state. The ruling was based on the Dormant Commerce Clause, preventing states from interfering with interstate commerce unless authorized by the United States Congress. The case resulted from an attempt by North Dakota seeking to collect sales tax on licensed computer software offered by the Quill Corporation, an office supply retailer with no North Dakota presence, that allowed users to place orders directly with Quill.

Alcohol laws of Kansas US state alcohol law

The alcohol laws of Kansas are among the strictest in the United States, in sharp contrast to its neighboring state of Missouri, and similar to its other neighboring state of Oklahoma. Legislation is enforced by the Kansas Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control.

44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island, 517 U.S. 484 (1996), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a complete ban on the advertising of alcohol prices was unconstitutional under the First Amendment, and that the Twenty-first Amendment, empowering the states to regulate alcohol, did not lessen other constitutional restraints of state power.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Alcohol laws of New Jersey</span> Laws governing alcoholic beverages in New Jersey

The state laws governing alcoholic drinks in New Jersey are among the most complex in the United States, with many peculiarities not found in other states' laws. They provide for 29 distinct liquor licenses granted to manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers, and for the public warehousing and transport of alcoholic drinks. General authority for the statutory and regulatory control of alcoholic drinks rests with the state government, particularly the Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control overseen by the state's Attorney General.

California Retail Liquor Dealers Assn. v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc., 445 U.S. 97 (1980), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court created a two-part test for the application of the state action immunity doctrine that it had previously developed in Parker v. Brown.

Wine shipping laws in the United States differ between states and are controlled by state law. While most alcohol sales are controlled by the three-tier system, nearly all states now permit some form of direct shipping of wine from wineries to consumers. Most states require wineries to pay for a permit in order to ship to consumers in the state, resulting in a winery-dependent slate of states that it may ship to. Direct wine shipments are also typically subject to sales and/or excise taxes. Most states also limit the quantity of wine that may be purchased monthly or annually, usually in terms of the number of nine-liter cases of wine that may be shipped, though most consumers are unaffected by these limits. Shipment of wine to dry areas is illegal.

The constitutional law of the United States is the body of law governing the interpretation and implementation of the United States Constitution. The subject concerns the scope of power of the United States federal government compared to the individual states and the fundamental rights of individuals. The ultimate authority upon the interpretation of the Constitution and the constitutionality of statutes, state and federal, lies with the Supreme Court of the United States.

Alba Vineyard is an American winery in the Finesville section of Pohatcong Township in Warren County, New Jersey. Formerly a dairy farm, the vineyard was first planted in 1980, and opened to the public in 1982. Alba is one of the larger winegrowers in New Jersey, having 42 acres of grapes under cultivation, and producing 11,000 cases of wine per year. The winery is named for the Italian word alba which means "dawn," the time of day when the original owner first conceived of producing wine.

New Jersey is home to the most complex alcohol laws in the United States. They provide 29 liquor licenses to wholesalers, manufacturers, retailers and the general public.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Traveling Vineyard</span>

Traveling Vineyard is an American multi-level marketing company based in Ipswich, Massachusetts, that sells wine. The company was founded in 2001, and in 2010 it was purchased by Richard Libby and restructured.

Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Association v. Thomas, No. 18-96, 588 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case which held that Tennessee's 2-year durational-residency requirement applicable to retail liquor store license applicants violated the Commerce Clause and was not authorized by the Twenty-first Amendment.

References

  1. Glunz, William (Winter 2007). "Granholm v. Heald: The Twenty-First Amendment Takes Another Hit - Where Do States Go From Here?". The John Marshall Law Review. 40 (2).
  2. "Direct Shipping Map". The Wine Institute.
  3. "Wine Direct Shipping Review". Appellation America.
  4. White, David (3 April 2011). "Wholesale Robbery in Liquor Sales". New York Times .