Alcohol

Does a State Law That Bars Newcomers From Selling Liquor Violate Their 'Privileges or Immunities'?

In a case SCOTUS will hear next month, victims of Tennessee's protectionism argue that it flouts the 14th Amendment as well as the Commerce Clause.

|

Institute for Justice

Doug and Mary Ketchum moved to Tennessee from Utah in 2016 to escape air quality problems in the Salt Lake Valley that endangered their 32-year-old daughter, Stacie, who has cerebral palsy. They bought a liquor store in Memphis, which they thought would support the family while giving them the flexibility they needed to take care of their daughter. They did not anticipate that a Tennessee trade group would use a moribund law to block their business plans and squash their livelihood.

That protectionist law is the focus of a case the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear next month. It provides an opportunity for the Court to clarify the interaction between the 21st Amendment, which gives states broad authority to regulate (or ban) alcoholic beverages, and the Commerce Clause, which aims to promote free trade among the states and has been understood to forbid anti-competitive policies like Tennessee's. The Institute for Justice, which represents the Ketchums, is also urging the Court to recognize the relevance of the 14th Amendment's long-neglected Privileges or Immunities Clause by ruling that it forbids states to restrict the economic opportunities of newcomers.

The Ketchums knew Tennessee had a law that limits liquor store licenses to people who have lived in the state for at least two years immediately before applying and limits annual renewals to people who at some point have lived in the state for at least 10 consecutive years. But they also knew that the Tennessee Alcoholic Beverage Commission had not enforced the law for years because state's attorney general had deemed it unconstitutional. That situation distressed the Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Association (TWSRA), which threatened to sue the commission if it allowed the Ketchums to operate their liquor store or issued a license to the Total Wine chain, which is also involved in the case.

A federal judge agreed that the law the trade group sought to revive was unconstitutional, and so did the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. Now the TWRSA is trying again in Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Association v. Blair, claiming the 21st Amendment authorizes Tennessee's liquor protectionism.

That argument seems to be foreclosed by Granholm v. Heald, the 2005 case in which the Supreme Court ruled that the 21st Amendment did not empower Michigan and New York to prohibit out-of-state wineries from shipping their products directly to consumers while allowing in-state wineries to do so. In Granholm, the Court said "state regulation of alcohol is limited by the nondiscrimination principle of the Commerce Clause," which requires close scrutiny of state laws that treat businesses differently based on their location.

Quoting an earlier decision, the Court noted that "when a state statute directly regulates or discriminates against interstate commerce, or when its effect is to favor in-state economic interests over out-of-state interests, we have generally struck down the statute without further inquiry." The only exception is when a state can show that its policy "advances a legitimate local purpose that cannot be adequately served by reasonable nondiscriminatory alternatives."

In this case, the TWRSA, which has taken Tennessee's place in defending the residency requirements for liquor licenses, has not even tried to meet that test. Instead it argues that Granholm should be read as applying only to restrictions on products from other states, not to restrictions on people from other states. The trade group claims that "states may regulate the in-state sale of alcohol 'unfettered by the Commerce Clause,' provided 'they treat liquor produced out of state the same as its domestic equivalent.'" As the Institute for Justice notes in its brief for the Ketchums, that distinction does not make much sense under Granholm or the nondiscrimination principle it enforced.

While Total Wine's brief focuses entirely on the Commerce Clause issue, the Institute for Justice devotes most of its brief to arguing that Tennessee's residency rules violate the Privileges or Immunities Clause, which says "no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." The Institute for Justice marshals extensive historical evidence to show that "the original public understanding of the clause was that it would protect the right of the freedmen (and their white Northern supporters) to migrate in connection with a livelihood and be treated equally in their new states of residence."

The Supreme Court has not shown much interest in protecting Americans' "privileges or immunities" since the late 19th century, preferring to rely on the Equal Protection Clause or the dubious concept of "substantive due process" when overturning state laws that impinge on rights that were supposed to be protected by the 14th Amendment. But the Court did rely on the Privileges or Immunities Clause in Saenz v. Roe, a 1999 decision that overturned California's one-year residency requirement for full welfare benefits.

"If the Privileges or Immunities Clause protects the right of a newly arrived resident to be treated equally in the receipt of welfare benefits," the Institute for Justice argues, "it surely protects her right to be treated equally in the pursuit of a livelihood." The brief also notes that Justice Clarence Thomas' concurring opinion in McDonald v. Chicago, the landmark 2010 ruling that applied the Second Amendment to state and local governments, relied on the original public understanding of "privileges or immunities."

It seems likely that the Supreme Court will limit its ruling to the proper application of the nondiscrimination principle. But it would be a nice surprise if the Court also breathed some more life into the Privileges or Immunities Clause, which is directly relevant to the unjust situation the Ketchums face.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they 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 for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

18 responses to “Does a State Law That Bars Newcomers From Selling Liquor Violate Their 'Privileges or Immunities'?

  1. I think it is more a violation of the negative commerce clause than P&I. Staters cannot use economic regulations to discriminate against out of state citizens. That is all this law is doing; making sure out of state people can’t buy liquor stores and compete with locals.

    1. So, not that I would object to his sort of thing being overturned, but… doesn’t this sort of lead to a conclusion where different states would have to recognize other state’s licensing for things, from EMTs and Pharmacists to hair braiders and… hell, I dunno, dry cleaners?

      1. Specifically the “the original public understanding of the clause was that it would protect the right of the freedmen (and their white Northern supporters) to migrate in connection with a livelihood and be treated equally in their new states of residence.” part?

      2. I think they should. But the courts disagree. As long as they offer some kind of reciprocity and ability to get a license, the state can do it.

      3. As long as the license to work in the state doesn’t require residency in the state, probably not.

        Case in point – I have an engineer’s license in PA, but I don’t live there.

        1. Do you pay a fee to PA for your stamp? Then they’re likely happy to take your money and have your lively hood elsewhere.

          1. Yes. BTW, I still work in PA, just don’t live there.

      4. This isn’t a case of licensing it has to do with an obstacle to licensing that is deemed unreasonable and obstructionary.

        No such law seems to exist to prevent “EMTs and Pharmacists” etc from becoming licensed as soon as they move to the state. But apparently to get a liquor license you need to wait two years.

        The Ketchums aren’t contesting the licensing requirement to do business in TN. The issue is the two year waiting period.

      5. “doesn’t this sort of lead to a conclusion where different states would have to recognize other state’s licensing for things”

        I hope so. Driving cross country and having to get a drivers license in every state you pass though would be a PITA.

        It would however, make for a quick divorce.

    2. But they’re not out-of-state citizens anymore. So arguably, that clause does not apply to this case.

      Now, with different plaintiffs (who still lived out of state), you could make that argument – but I think it would likely be a loser. The courts have upheld far more ridiculous residency requirements for all sorts of occupational licensing. The Board would have a pretty easy time recasting their rule as an occupational license and relying on those precedents.

  2. whatever I’m missing makes it odd they’d grant cert. Repeal the 21st! oh wait…

  3. The 21st Amendment repeals federal Prohibition and replaces it with 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.”

    It doesn’t let the states ban the migration of citizens, or put limitations on migrants’ right to earn a livelihood.

    1. I would argue, despite the Supreme Court, that the literal language would allow for protectionist liquor laws. This would normally contradict the Commerce Clause, but the 21st Amendment’s framers were aware of the protectionism claims and decided that state bans on importing likker were more important than anti-protectionist principles.

  4. No one should sell liquor.
    It only make the masses drunk and as stupid as the ruling elitist filth governing us.

  5. This isn’t about the family. It’s about Total Wine. This family just had the bad luck of getting caught up in a larger battle.

    A Total Wine opened up near me and I have already seen the impact on the local dominant chain in the form of lower prices.

  6. I would say that it would be a violation of the US constitution for a state to have law that treated its residents differently based only on the time that they lived in the state.

  7. You have to have lived in Tennessee for two years unless you have friends in high places.

  8. I essentially started three weeks past and that i makes $385 benefit $135 to $a hundred and fifty consistently simply by working at the internet from domestic. I made ina long term! “a great deal obliged to you for giving American explicit this remarkable opportunity to earn more money from domestic. This in addition coins has adjusted my lifestyles in such quite a few manners by which, supply you!”. go to this website online domestic media tech tab for extra element thank you .

    http://www.Mesalary.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.