Seventh Circuit Upholds Indiana Alcohol Laws Without a Majority Opinion

After one judge died, the two remaining judges could not agree on why the state should prevail.

This week, in Chicago Wine Co. v. Braun, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed a district court decision rejecting a constitutional challenge to an Indiana law barring out-of-state retailers from shipping wine to customers in Indiana. Yet there is no majority opinion of the court.

The case was initially heard by a panel consisting of Judges Kanne, Eaterbrook, and Scudder. After Judge Kanne's death, Judges Easterbrook and Scudder could not agree on why the state should prevail, so the court issued a per curiam noting that the district court was affirmed, and each judge issued an opinion explaining his reasons why that should be.

Dormant commerce clause doctrine is not known for its clarity (nor, some would say, its consistency). This judgment by the Seventh Circuit would seem to support that opinion.

Comments

[Area Man]

“Dormant commerce clause doctrine is not known for its clarity (nor, some would say, its consistency).”

Or its existence as a valid constitutional doctrine.

[Soronel Haetir]

I would think the special permission granted to the states regarding alcohol regulation would make usual dormant commerce clause analysis moot anyway. In this one area they are given a very specific grant of power ("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"). That would seem to defeat any requirement that the state treat in-state and out-of-state producers equally.

[wvattorney13]

That has some limits, though. The state couldn't have racial bars on alcohol purchases.

I think there has to be some rational basis for these laws and I can see none. They are just protectionist rackets for preferred sellers.

[Brett Bellmore]

Setting aside that "rational" basis is actually "not chewing the sofa insane" basis, there is one here: The state wants to favor domestic producers.

Yes, it's a protectionist racket. The state is permitted to have one, once the interstate commerce clause is out of the way.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's my thought, too. Even if you take the dormant commerce clause seriously, alcohol is, expressly, the one thing NOT subject to it. If you're applying normal rules of construction, rather than "the federal government wins anything we can pretend is a tie" rules, this is a no-brainer: The 21st amendment is much more recent, and exactly on point.

[Frank Drackman]

Indiana doesn’t allow convenience or grocery stores to sell cold Beer, and before you think it’s a safety measure to cut down on drinking and driving, you can get cold Beer, but only at Liquor stores.
It’s about the only thing I remember about Indiana (Oh, and the “House of Mud” don’t miss it!)

Frank

[defaultdotxbe]

Also, liquor stores can't sell cold soda, but grocery stores can.