including and most notably laws pertaining to retailer direct shipping . Prior to the Tennessee Wine ruling and based on the 2005 U . S . Supreme Court decision in Granholm v . Heald , state liquor laws regulating wholesalers and retailers were largely shielded from DCC challenges .
How to Think About State Alcohol Laws Now Per Tennessee Wine , the 21st Amendment does not save “ blatantly protectionist ” state laws , but it does allow “ each State leeway to enact the measures that its citizens believe are appropriate to address the public health and safety effects of alcohol use and to serve other legitimate interests .”
For states that believe in the legality and importance of alcohol laws that are tailored to the state ’ s culture , values , residents and traditions , they need to be able to show " concrete evidence " of the public health and safety interest or other legitimate state interests for having those laws . They can no longer merely rely on the assertion that the 21st Amendment is exempted from the DCC .
States need to : make sure the alcohol regulator has clear statutory authority to enforce laws and advance the state ’ s legitimate interest ; capture data and provide evidence of enforcement actions and inspections ; build a record of the public health and safety intent for specific alcohol policies ; and make sure regulatory agencies have resources to effectively and meaningfully carry out enforcement .
U . S . Supreme Court Cases
• Walmart v . TABC – The Court is reviewing briefs to determine whether to hear Wal-Mart ’ s appeal that the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals erred in ruling against their effort to strike down a Texas law that prohibits publicly traded companies from obtaining the “ package store ” permits ( or “ P permits ”) required for retail liquor sales . TPSA has intervened in the case on behalf of TABC . ABL filed amicus briefs with the district and circuit courts .
• Lebamoff v . Whitmer – The Court is considering whether to hear an appeal from the plaintiff , an Indiana liquor retailer , challenging the 6th Circuit ’ s decision upholding a Michigan law that “ permits Michigan to treat in-state retailers ( who operate within the three-tier system ) differently from out-of-state retailers ( who do not .)” The circuit court ’ s ruling also notes the importance of in-state wholesalers and that efforts to go around them , while potentially creating short term economic efficient arguments , raise real life concerns for the state .
• Connecticut Fine Wine and Spirits LLC v . Seagull – In April 2020 , the Court denied certiorari of this case in which the plaintiff , Total Wine , appealed the 2nd Circuit Court ’ s finding upholding Connecticut ’ s law that requires private beer , wine and liquor wholesalers to “ post ” and “ hold ” their prices to allow competing wholesalers to match them ; refrain from offering quantity discounts to retailers ; and determining retailer and minimum consumer pricing .
Retail Shipping Cases – Filed Pre-Tennessee Wine
• Lebamoff v . O ’ Connell – In this case , which was dismissed in Illinois District Court , appealed to the 7th Circuit , and subsequently remanded back to district court , involves an Indiana retailer challenging an Illinois law that bars out-of-state wine retailers shipping to Illinois residents despite the fact that in-state retailers are authorized to do so .
• Sarasota Wine Market v . Schmitt – Oral arguments were held before the 8th Circuit on September 24 , 2020 for this case brought by a Florida retailer against the State of Missouri for allowing local retailers to make deliveries of wine but prohibiting out-of-state retailers from delivering alcohol . This case was appealed to the 8th Circuit by the plaintiffs after the district court ruled for Missouri in March 2019 .
Retail Shipping Cases – Filed Post-Tennessee Wine Soon after the Tennessee Wine ruling in June 2019 , several lawsuits were filed in district courts challenging state alcohol laws that do not allow out-of-state retailers to ship alcohol directly to consumers in those states . More than 35 states prohibit or limit interstate retailer wine shipping direct-to-consumers . Even more prohibit the same type of shipping of liquor and beer . The lawsuits , all orchestrated by the same attorneys and applying similar arguments , remain in various stages of the judicial process . Cases include :
• Indiana – Chicago Wine Company v . Holcomb
• Kentucky – Tannins of Indianapolis v . Taylor
• New Jersey – Bernstein v . Graziano
• North Carolina – B-21 Wines v . Guy
• Ohio – Block v . Canepa
• Rhode Island – Anvar v . Tanner
21st Amendment Enforcement Act Litigation In July , a lawsuit was filed by the State of Ohio in U . S . District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against Wine . com and other online alcohol retailers to stop illegal wine and liquor shipments to Ohioans . The shippers do not hold “ S Permits ”, which are available to wine manufacturers and importers who produce less than 250,000 gallons of wine per year . The Ohio Attorney General is seeking an injunction to stop direct-toconsumer alcohol sales from out of state entities under the Twenty-First Amendment Enforcement Act , which marks the first time the law , passed in 2000 , has been applied by a state . Though the Act does not permit states to collect monetary damages , it does provide them the ability to
seek injunctive relief .
In October , Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel used the 21st Amendment Enforcement Act to file a lawsuit in federal court against two online shippers – Vintner ’ s Collective and Go To Gifts , both based in California – alleging that they illegally shipped alcohol to Michigan after receiving cease and desist orders . Neither business holds a license to ship alcohol in Michigan .
2020 TPSA Program-9