Contraband Cabernet
Yesterday the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit upheld New York state's ban on direct shipment of alcoholic beverages to consumers from out-of-state suppliers. Two dozen states maintain such bans, which, among other things, prevent wineries in other states from selling directly to the public. For small wineries, that is often the only viable method of distribution.
A district court had overturned New York's ban, finding that it exceeded the state's authority under the 21st Amendment (which repealed Prohibition and gave states special permission to regulate alcohol sales) and erected a trade barrier that violated the Commerce Clause. The 2nd Circuit disagreed, finding that the ban is not mere protectionism but "serves valid regulatory interests" by making sure that all distributors are licensed and have a physical presence in New York.
Three other appeals courts have overturned similar bans in North Carolina, Texas, and Michigan, setting up a conflict that the Institute for Justice, which brought the New York case, expects the Supreme Court to resolve. I.J.'s Clint Bolick predicts "this decision will be a momentary blip on the legal radar screen."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Huh? Ending interstate protectionism is half of the reason we adopted the U.S. Constitution in first place, and all of the reason why it contains the commerce clause.
"The 2nd Circuit disagreed, finding that the ban is not mere protectionism but "serves valid regulatory interests" by making sure that all distributors are licensed and have a physical presence in New York.
Holy Orwellian doublespeak
It's a crappy policy, but I don't think the federal government really has the authority to step in on it.
Xrlg says, "Huh? Ending interstate protectionism is half of the reason we adopted the U.S. Constitution in first place, and all of the reason why it contains the commerce clause."
And absent the 21st amendment, which ironically "ended" alcohol prohibition, the states might not have had a leg to stand on. Xrlg's argument makes sense and should prevail, in my opinion. The 21st Amendment's 2nd clause, however, says this: "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."
In other words, while ending federal prohibition, the 21st Amendment empowered the states to override the requirements of the Commerce Clause and other constitutional provisions, in the establishment and enforcement of their own local forms of Prohibition. National prohibition may have been abolished, but State prohibition was strengthened.
It's enough to make you want a drink.
On Tuesday 31 August 2004 01:10:07 Medical equipment http://medical-equipment.order.gb.com post was powered by Golf vacations http://golf-vacations.order.gb.com Tuesday 31 August 2004 01:10:07 and Digital Cameras http://digital-cameras.order.gb.com and also DVD Player http://dvd-player.order.gb.com and of course beautiful Flowers http://flowers.order.gb.com and don't forget Mobile Phones http://mobile-phones.order.gb.com