Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Court Strikes Down Ban on Wine Shipments

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
brooklynite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 09:49 AM
Original message
Court Strikes Down Ban on Wine Shipments
WASHINGTON May 16, 2005 — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states may not pass laws blocking outside wineries from shipping directly to customers.

The 5-4 decision strikes down laws in New York and Michigan that make it a crime to buy wine directly from vineyards in another state. In all, 24 states have laws that bar interstate shipments.

The state bans are discriminatory and anti-competitive, the court said.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=761124
- - -
I'll drink to that!

Seriously, NY has been enmeshed for years in restrictive rules, primarily favoring local distributors and stores already in place. Open competition should make things a lot healthier.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DoveTurnedHawk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 09:56 AM
Response to Original message
1. Dupe
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1476295

Sorry, I think I beat you to it by maybe 15 seconds. ;-)

DTH
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoveTurnedHawk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 10:03 AM
Response to Original message
2. (Supreme) Court Strikes Down Ban on Wine Shipments
Wine lovers may buy directly from out-of-state vineyards, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, striking down laws banning a practice that has flourished because of the Internet and growing popularity of winery tours.

The 5-4 decision overturns laws in New York and Michigan that make it a crime to buy wine directly from vineyards in another state. In all, 24 states have laws that bar interstate shipments.

<...>

Kennedy was joined in his opinion by Justices Antonin Scalia, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

<...>

In a dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas argued that the ruling needlessly overturns long-established regulations aimed partly at protecting minors. State regulators under the 21st Amendment have clear authority to regulate alcohol as the see fit, he wrote.

"The court does this nation no service by ignoring the textual commands of the Constitution and acts of Congress," Thomas wrote.

He was joined in his opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and John Paul Stevens.

<...>

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/scotus_wine_shipments

DTH
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoveTurnedHawk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Weirdest. 5-4 Majority. Ever.
Man, there must have been some novel constitutional arguments to cobble those groupings together. Scalia with the majority? Stevens with the minority? Wow.

DTH
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurgherHoldtheLies Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #3
10. Ya, really. What an odd set of bedfellows on that one. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYC2099 Donating Member (60 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 10:08 AM
Response to Reply #3
12. I thought the exact same thing!!! Weird majority.
Great ruling though.

There are a many very small local wineries in NY/NJ (as well as in many parts of the country) that will definately benefit with this ruling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trogdor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #3
26. Even odder yet.
Clarence Thomas wrote the minority opinion, and actually makes a decent argument.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sabriel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. Yahooo! Now I can get those wine shipments started again
Oh, wait, I forgot I can't afford it anymore. Rats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fridays Child Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. Clarence Thomas, champion of states' rights
:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoveTurnedHawk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. Yeah, No Kidding
What a guy. Such a champion of legal consistency. :eyes:

DTH
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
patricia92243 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #2
6. Why would anybody have cared if wine were bought from another state? Does
Doesn't make sense to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bridget Burke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. The wholesalers....
They had a monopoly in some states & it hurt smaller wineries.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #8
20. And the wholesellers pretend that they're performing the valuable function
of not letting minors throw wine-tasting parties through on-line/telephone purchases.

This ruling cuts out the middle-man and lets vineyards sell direct to customers. It also lowers prices for customers and increases profits for the producers.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AngryAmish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. It is a protectionist law
NY wanted to give in state vinyards a leg up.

Also, liquor distributors want the law so they get a cut of all profits. These laws exist because of graft.

The commerce clause exists to prevent this sort of abuse between states. However, the 21st Amendment gives states the right to regulate. I would not have voted to overturn the ban, no matter how stupid the laws.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KurtNYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #9
37. They should work on local laws which prohibit wine sales
in supermarkets. In NY you can buy beer at a supermarket but not wine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AngryAmish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #37
39. Who should work?
The ledgislature of NY, yes. SCOTUS? No way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 10:07 AM
Response to Reply #2
11. 21st Ammendment is clear on this issue
Amendment XXI - Amendment XVIII repealed. Ratified 12/5/1933. History

1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

2. 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. REPEALED

3. The article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress

This should never have gone to the Extreme Court Our Constitution is explicet in giving us the right to do that very thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #11
14. Is wine classified as an intoxicating liquor? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davidinalameda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #14
17. if you drink enough, yes it is
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 10:44 AM
Response to Reply #17
22. Heh, heh, I meant, in terms of gov't regulation? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rayofreason Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #22
52. wine status
Yep, wine is an intoxicating liquor (legally). During Prohibition, the only winemaking allowed was for communion wine...so my grandfather's good friend was the priest!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #11
21. The overturned laws didn't forbid the sale of alcohol.
What they did was grant companies located in the state a monopoly on the retail sale under the pretense that they protected the welfare of state citizens. They were government-mandated middlemen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
northzax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #21
38. also a revenue protector
is every small vinyard going to figure the local and state alcohol tax and pay it? I vote no.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AngryAmish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #38
40. Out-of-state vineyards may not have to pay local tax.
I'm not sure of this, but internet sales are not subject to local tax.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #38
44. If Amazon doesn't have to do it, why should the vineyards?
Having said that, I do think that it would be good customer service for Amazon and anyone doing busy on the net to give the customers the option of having the retailer collect the use tax and pay other states.

They could incorporate the software and the production of the documents that need to be filed very easily and I think many customers in states with use taxes, who follow the law and pay them, would be loyal to retailers who do this work for them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #38
45. Furthermore, wholesellers don't pay sales tax anyway, so there's no lost
revenue in the sate in which the vineyard is located
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
northzax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #45
48. the problem isn't the state that has the vineyard
it's the state that the wine is shipped to. As it is, in the District of Columbia, I pay 9% on a bottle of wine. From the vineyard, shipped out of state, I pay nothing. Good for me, bad for DC.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #48
53. Does DC have a use tax?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
northzax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #53
54. you mean if you bought something out of state
and use it in DC? only over $5,000, I think.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #54
56. Many states have a use tax which you pay on out of state/internet purchase
that you declare on your state returns. States do it all different ways, but most give at least the option of calculating your local sales tax on all your purchases and that's where they get the sales tax back.

If I were worried about lost sales tax revenue, I'd argue for a use tax that starts much lower than 5K before I argued to protect a law that artificially creates a middle man which screws consumers and manufacturers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #2
13. Thomas can kiss my ass. Some states have laws that have nada to do
with keeping minors from having out of state wine. In Montana, it is illegal for me (WAY over 21) to bring a bottle of wine I bought in California, live and in person, home to Montana to enjoy. That one has nothing to do with protecting minors. It is part of the law preventing shipments of wine into MT. It is about local sin taxes, not protecting minors.

Do it for the children? Shit, the 12 year olds around here get stinking drunk on beer for 8th grade graduation and 'grown ups' are the ones supplying the brew! How about enforcing laws concerning care of minors and let us geezers have the wine doctors recommend?

Can't buy much good wine here, and the distributors just won't bring in what we ask for so fuck 'em. Some of us do not consider Bud or Bud Lite as a choice!

As usual, Thomas is hiding behind children. It is state taxes and liquor distributors who want the laws banning out of state purchase.
What about interstate commerce? We wine drinkers are big supporters of that little Constitutional tidbit!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 10:14 AM
Response to Reply #13
15. Well, you can give a toast and tell Thomas to shove it!
After your first shipment arrives, of course!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 10:21 AM
Response to Reply #15
18. Italian reds
and California whites!

MMMMMMM! here's mud in yer eye, Clarence!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
customerserviceguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #13
19. It could be worse
You could be in Utah!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #19
24. Won't even drive through it anymore
Waiting for the big bridge to be built ;) Some of us just don't think God loves us so much that we don't need to pay attention and use turn signals!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
customerserviceguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #24
47. But, but!
but you'd miss...


Oh, never mind.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #47
66. Hey, it's a really beatiful state.
Edited on Mon May-16-05 06:59 PM by havocmom
But in 6 trips through the entire north to south length of it, I only saw one person use a turn signal.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
makhno Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 10:18 AM
Response to Original message
16. Cigarettes next, I hope
I wonder if some of the same reasoning could be applied for allowing out-of-state shipments of cigarettes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #16
25. I don't think there's a restriction on cigarettes.
I've been buying mine on the net for several years.

The people who tried to interfere with cigarette sales are the credit card companies. As of April 1st, you can no longer use your credit card to purchase cigarettes online. The sellers have resorted to echecks of sending your MO, personal check or bank check through the mail. Supposedly, it was to prevent sales to minors, but it's a stupid idea in my opinion. If a minor wants to buy them, they can just send a check! All it did was create an inconvenience for people like me!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indie_voter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #25
60. It's easier to ship cigarettes and guns than wine
I am thrilled, now my siblings can buy direct from wineries when they come out here (SF Bay Area) to visit! They can also get on mailing lists.

Ahhh, the slippery slope!


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
supernova Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 10:51 AM
Response to Original message
23. Yay! Cause once I find something in the store I like
It would be nice to just call up the winery and say, send me a case.

The stores are nice for trying out things, experimenting. But once you know what you like I don't see any reason you can't buy from the winery directly. Doesn't make sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rockerdem Donating Member (706 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 11:01 AM
Response to Original message
27. AWESOME!!!
This has been a pet peeve. I havent even looked at who made up the five, but I would shake each one's hand for a day.

And "fuck you, Joe Scarborough". He was one of the ringleaders who tried to protect the liquor lobby monopoly when he was in office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sam sarrha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 11:43 AM
Response to Original message
28. the "shipped" wine is usually more than $75 a bottle..it is delivered and
frequently left at the house, outside, if the people are not home..

this is frequently just common wine for 75 DOLLARS..!!! what is up with that???!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoveTurnedHawk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #28
29. Maybe If You Don't Know What You're Doing
But if you do it right, you can get great prices on fantastic wine. I visited a winery in Sonoma, found an incredible pinot noir, and bought two cases of it, the price worked out to under $8 a bottle even after shipping.

DTH
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joeunderdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 08:11 PM
Response to Reply #29
67. Best way is to visit and check your case of wine as luggage.
Sometimes you can get wine club/bulk discounts and not incur a cent of shipping charges.

As chance would have it, I'm going tomorrow to pick up my spring shipment of Adelaida wine from my contact in NH. You can't ship to MA, so I have to drive an hour to pick up. Hopefully, that's ovah!

BTW--plenty of good wines available for under $20. Our highest price wine in this shipment is $75, but they cut 20% off the total price to make up for shipping costs.

I can't drink the cheap stuff, but I can't afford the good stuff!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shawn703 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 11:58 AM
Response to Original message
30. Supreme Court side with wineries (State bans on direct shipments tossed)
The high court ruled that an old law -- the 21st Amendment, which repealed Prohibition and gave states wide regulatory authority over alcohol -- is trumped by an even older one: the clause that gives Congress sole authority to regulate interstate commerce.

The 5-4 ruling invalidated laws in New York and Michigan that barred out-of-state wineries from selling directly to their residents.

Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said those rules were discriminatory, favored in-state businesses and deprived citizens of "their right to have access to other states' markets on equal terms."


more...
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid=%7B349FB226-950C-48BD-A545-CB4583A52C76%7D&siteid=google
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BR_Parkway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #30
31. So is this precendent for saying that amendments are un-constitutional?
Another chink in the "it's ok to hate gays" legislation.

I LOVE that the wineries won this one, too much control by the distributors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nothingshocksmeanymore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #31
34. No, not really
Often one section of the constitution trumps another in issues especially concerning commerce.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dbackjon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #31
43. I had the same thought
So even if a "Marriage Protection Act" is passed to the U.S. Constitution, we have legal precedent to say that the 14th, etc trump them?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nothingshocksmeanymore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #30
32. Kind of interesting how the divison fell on the 5-4 court
not the usual 5-4
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mcscajun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #30
33. About damned time, too!
Some of the most interesting wines are from small vineyards in other parts of the country, and they cannot ship to folks in those 24 states (my state, NJ, being one of them.)

:applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noamnety Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 12:01 PM
Response to Original message
35. So is that effective immediately?
Not that I have time to order any anyhow, but it would be nice to know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
libnnc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 12:03 PM
Response to Original message
36. This is good for NC
the wine industry here is really taking off.

http://www.raylenvineyards.com/default.htm

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
supernova Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #36
55. Are you going to the NC Wine Festival next month?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
libnnc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 04:19 PM
Response to Reply #55
57. Every year, we say we're gonna go
and it never works out. But this year we're going to make a real effort.

If we don't get out to Tanglewood this year, we totally suck.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
supernova Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #57
58. I went the second year
and have been trying to get back to it ever since.

It is a wonderful time. And some really good wine. I esp like the voigners around here.

I'm going to try to go next month.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 02:06 PM
Response to Original message
41. Be Careful, this ruling still permits States to ban sales on line
The ruling is quite narrow, had to be to get around the 21st amendment. What the Majority ruled was while it is constitutional under the 21st amendment for a state to ban ALL sales over the net, if a state permits in-state sellers to sell over the net, it must permit out of state sellers that same right.

Thus all a state has to do is prohibit ALL sales over the net and this ruling will NOT apply. For Example my Home State of Pennsylvania requires all sales to be through the state-owned liquor store system. Thus this ruling has NO affect on Sales in Wine in Pennsylvania. Now Pennsylvania does permit direct sales from the winery and form one other location. Exactly how that will be affected by this ruling is unclear, but all Pennsylvania has to do to solve the problem is repeal that right.

Thus I would advise people (Unless you are in Michigan or New York) NOT to direct buy until you check with your local lawyer. As to Michigan and New York it will be legal to import wine for personal consumption until each state passes a new law (probably making it illegal to sell over the net).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #41
42. Thanks for the PA info--I wondered....n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllegroRondo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 04:28 PM
Response to Reply #41
59. Does that include mail or phone orders?
Can I just call the wine manufacturer and order it over the phone?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-17-05 01:10 AM
Response to Reply #59
69. Depends on your state's law
Under the Second section of the 21st Amendment (The First section repealed prohibition, the Second Section is what is the subject of this case) State's retain the right to regulate Alcohol made in or imported into the state. This ruling only says that when it comes to such regulations it must be the same for in state and out of state makers of Alcohol.

My understanding of Pennsylvania law says you CAN not call a wine maker and order wine. You can go to their plant (and one store) but not order over the phone. I see this being upheld under the 21st Amendment on the grounds that the same rule applies to out of state vintners (i.e. they can sell to Pennsylvania residents who travel to their vineyards).

The off-site store is different, but in such stores the vintner can only sell his or her products. Until the Liquor Control Board makes a ruling on this subject an out of state Vintner does not even have that option. Please note Under Pennsylvania Liquor law, the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board (PLCB) legal staff's opinions have the full effect of law. Thus it will be interesting what the Legal Staff writes about this decision. I foresee the Legal Staff saying that this decision has no effect on Wine Sales in Pennsylvania (i.e. Wine sales independent of the PLCB will still be illegal).

I just do not foresee a challenge on the Wine Stores, not because I see the rule restricting such stores to Pennsylvanian Vintners as NOT violating the Commerce Clause, but the best a litigate could hope to win is the right to set up a similar store, one store for all of Pennsylvania and in that store only sell their Wine. Such a right will have no real economic gain for a litigate and such a ruling would satisfy this latest ruling by the Supreme Court (i.e. if the Court orders Pennsylvania to treat out of State Vintners like In-state Vintners, all the litigate gets is the right to set up one store and in that store only sell what their produce, the exact same rights Pennsylvania Producers have). Thus I do not see anyone attacking the Pennsylvania Rules on Liquor based on this ruling.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-18-05 10:00 AM
Response to Reply #69
70. Subsequent Research
Shows that Pennsylvania Vintners did have the State Legislature pass a law permitting them to ship directly, while prohibiting out of state Vintners the same right. Under this ruling that is now illegal. The next question is what will the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board (PLCB) and the State General Assembly do about it.

If neither does anything the Courts will have to make a decision. The courts will have to decide what is the State law given this ruling. What I mean does this ruling strike down the Restriction on out of State vintners OR does this ruling strike down the right of in state Vintners to make such shipments. The Michigan and New York Laws in question clearly prohibited out of state shipment of wine but permitted in state shipments of wine. This seems to be why these two cases were taken on by the Supreme Court. Pennsylvania law is a general ban with an exception for instate vintners. Thus the State Courts can rule that the Supreme Court Decision strikes down THE EXCEPTION while KEEPING THE GENERAL RULE. Thus the Courts can rule that the exception permitting in state wineries to ship wine direct is what violates the Commerce Clause NOT the General ban against importing wines.

I see this being resolved by a Ruling from the PLCB that the Winery exception is unconstitutional and inform all such wineries that they must stop direct shipment of wine and that any shipments must be through the PLCB owned system.

Here is the General Rule:

§ 5-501. License required

Except as otherwise provided in this article, and except as otherwise provided in article four as to malt and brewed beverages, it shall be unlawful for any person without a license obtained under provisions of this article to hold in storage as bailee for hire, or transport for hire, any malt or brewed beverage, or to manufacture, produce, distill, develop or use in the process of manufacture, denature, redistill, recover, rectify, blend, reuse, hold in bond, hold in storage as bailee for hire, or transport for hire, within this Commonwealth, any alcohol or liquor, except that a person may manufacture wine out of grapes grown in Pennsylvania by fermentation only and with no alcohol or alcoholic product added thereto by way of fortification and sell the same to a licensed winery.


Here is the ban on Shipping into Pennsylvania AND a limited right to direct ship. This limited Right is part of the problem under this ruling. Pa, unlike other states, did permit some direct shipments but only to PLCB stores:

§ 4-488. Shipment of wine into Commonwealth

(a) The shipment of wine from out-of-State to residents of this Commonwealth is prohibited, except as otherwise provided for in this section.

(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this act or law to the contrary, a person licensed by another state as a producer, supplier, importer, wholesaler, distributor or retailer of wine and who obtains a direct wine shipper license as provided for in this section may ship up to nine liters per month of any wine not included on the list provided for in subsection (c) on the Internet order of any resident of this Commonwealth who is at least twenty-one (21) years of age for such resident's personal use and not for resale.

(c) Each month, the board shall publish on the Internet a list of all classes, varieties and brands of wine available for sale in the Pennsylvania Liquor Stores. A person holding a direct shipper license may ship only those classes, varieties and brands of wine not included on the list at the time an Internet order is placed.

(d) An out-of-State wine shipper shall:

(1) Not ship more than nine liters per month on the Internet order of any person in this Commonwealth.

(2) Report to the board each year the total of wine shipped into this Commonwealth in the preceding calendar year.

(3) Permit the board or the Secretary of Revenue, or their designated representatives, to perform an audit of the out-of-State wine shipper's records upon request.

(4) Be deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the board, any other State agency and the courts of this Commonwealth for purposes of enforcement of this section and any related laws, rules or regulations.

(e) A direct shipper may ship wine on the Internet order of a resident into this Commonwealth provided that the wine is shipped to a Pennsylvania Liquor Store selected by the resident. The wine will be subject to taxes in the same manner as wine sold directly by the board. The wine will not be released by the State store until all moneys due, including all taxes and fees, have been paid by the resident.

(f) A person shall sign an affidavit provided by the Pennsylvania Liquor Store where the wine was delivered to stating that the wine will only be used for the person's personal use. Any person who resells wine obtained under this section commits a misdemeanor of the second degree.

(g) The board may promulgate such rules and regulations as are necessary to implement and enforce the provisions of this section. The board may charge the resident a fee to cover the cost associated with processing the Internet order.

(h) The board shall submit monthly reports to the Appropriations Committee and the Law and Justice Committee of the Senate and to the Appropriations Committee and the Liquor Control Committee of the House of Representatives summarizing the number of direct shipper licenses issued by the board, the quantity of wine sold pursuant to this section and the total dollar value of sales under this section.

(i) The term "wine" as used in this section shall mean liquor which is fermented from grapes and other fruits, having alcoholic content of twenty-four per centum or less. The term "wine" shall not include malt or brewed beverages nor shall wine include any products containing alcohol derived from malt, grain, cereal, molasses or cactus.


Here is the exception for Pa Wine that is NOW unconstitutional under this ruling. Through the PLCB legal opinion may save this section by ruling that this section now extends to out of state wineries.

§ 5-505.2. Limited wineries

(a) In the interest of promoting tourism and recreational development in Pennsylvania, holders of a limited winery license may:

(1) Produce alcoholic ciders, wines and wine coolers, subject to the exceptions provided under this section, only from an agricultural commodity grown in Pennsylvania.

(2) Sell alcoholic cider, wine and wine coolers produced by the limited winery or purchased in bulk in bond from another Pennsylvania limited winery on the licensed premises, under such conditions and regulations as the board may enforce, to the board, to individuals and to brewery, hotel, restaurant, club and public service liquor licensees, and to Pennsylvania winery licensees: Provided, That a limited winery shall not, in any calendar year, purchase alcoholic cider or wine produced by other limited wineries in an amount in excess of fifty per centum of the alcoholic cider or wine produced by the purchasing limited winery in the preceding calendar year. In addition, the holder of a limited winery license may purchase wine in bottles from another Pennsylvania limited winery if these wines undergo a second fermentation process. Such wine may be sold in bottles bearing the purchasing limited winery's label or the producing limited winery's label. Such wines, if sold by the board, may be sold by the producing limited winery to the purchasing limited winery at a price lower than the price charged by the board.

(3) Separately or in conjunction with other limited wineries, sell alcoholic cider, wine and wine coolers produced by the limited winery on no more than five (5) board-approved locations other than the licensed premises, with no bottling or production requirement at those additional board-approved locations and under such conditions and regulations as the board may enforce, to the board, to individuals and to brewery, hotel, restaurant, club and public service liquor licensees. If two or more limited wineries apply to operate an additional board-approved location in conjunction with each other, the wineries need only have one board-approved manager for the location, need only pay one application fee and need not designate specific or distinct areas for each winery's licensed area. Each limited winery must file an application for such an additional board-approved location, and such location shall count as one of the five permitted for each limited winery. Each limited winery is responsible for keeping only its own complete records. A limited winery may be cited for a violation of the recordkeeping requirements of sections 512 and 513 pertaining to its own records only.

(4) At the discretion of the board, obtain a special permit to participate in alcoholic cider, wine and food expositions off the licensed premises. A special permit shall be issued upon proper application and payment of a fee of thirty dollars ($ 30) per day for each day of permitted use, not to exceed five (5) consecutive days. The total number of days for all the special permits may not exceed forty (40) days in any calendar year. A special permit shall entitle the holder to engage in the sale by the glass, by the bottle or in case lots of alcoholic cider or wine produced by the permittee under the authority of a limited winery license. Holders of special permits may provide tasting samples of wines in individual portions not to exceed one fluid ounce. Samples at alcoholic cider, wine and food expositions may be sold or offered free of charge. Except as provided herein, limited wineries utilizing special permits shall be governed by all applicable provisions of this act as well as by all applicable regulations or conditions adopted by the board.

For the purposes of this clause, "alcoholic cider, wine and food expositions" are defined as affairs held indoors or outdoors with the primary intent of educating those in attendance of the availability, nature and quality of Pennsylvania-produced alcoholic ciders and wines in conjunction with suitable food displays, demonstrations and sales. Alcoholic cider, wine and food expositions may also include activities other than alcoholic cider, wine and food displays, including arts and crafts, musical activities, cultural exhibits, agricultural exhibits and similar activities.

(5) Apply for and hold a hotel liquor license, a restaurant liquor license or a malt and brewed beverages retail license to sell for consumption at the restaurant or limited winery on the licensed winery premises, liquor, wine and malt or brewed beverages regardless of the place of manufacture under the same conditions and regulations as any other hotel liquor license, restaurant liquor license or malt and brewed beverages retail license.

(6) (i) Secure a permit from the board to allow the holder of a limited winery license to use up to twenty-five per centum permitted fruit, not wine, in the current year's production. Each permit is valid only for the calendar year in which it is issued.

(ii) The fee for a permit to import and use permitted fruit shall be in an amount to be determined by the board.

(iii) The purpose of this section is to increase the productivity of limited wineries while at the same time protecting the integrity and unique characteristics of wine produced from fruit primarily grown in this Commonwealth. Prevailing climatic conditions have a significant impact on the character of the fruit. Accordingly, "permitted fruit" shall mean fruit grown or juice derived from fruit grown within three hundred fifty (350) miles of the winery.

(iv) The department is authorized to promulgate regulations requiring the filing of periodic reports by limited wineries to ensure compliance with the provisions of this section.

(6.1) Sell food for consumption on or off the licensed premises and sell by the glass only wine and alcoholic ciders that may otherwise be sold by the bottle.

(6.2) Sell wine- or liquor-scented candles acquired or produced by the limited winery.

(6.3) Sell alcoholic cider, wine and wine coolers only between the hours of nine o'clock antemeridian and nine o'oclock postmeridian. During the period from Thanksgiving Day through New Year's Day, limited winery sales locations may remain open to conform with the closing times of neighboring mall or shopping district businesses but no later than ten o' clock postmeridian. A limited winery also may request approval from the board to extend sales hours in individual locations at other times during the year or beyond the limits set forth in this clause. The request shall be made in writing to the board's Office of the Chief Counsel and shall detail the exact locations where sales hours are proposed to be extended, the proposed hours and dates of extended operation and the reason for the proposed extended hours.

(b) The total production of alcoholic ciders, wine and wine coolers by a limited winery may not exceed two hundred thousand (200,000) gallons per year.

(c) The term "agricultural commodity" as used in this section shall include any of the following: agricultural, apicultural, horticultural, silvicultural and viticultural commodities.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pacifist Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 03:23 PM
Response to Original message
46. Woohoo! Florida has a similar law. Wonder how it will affect
the wine club I belong to. It's a distributorship that helps small wineries in CA get their wine to consumers in Florida.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Charlie Brown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 03:32 PM
Response to Original message
49. SC overturns state bans on wine shipments
Edited on Mon May-16-05 02:59 PM by Charlie Brown
http://www.ajc.com/hp/content/shared-gen/ap/US_Supreme_Court/Scotus_Wine_Shipments.html

WASHINGTON — Wine lovers may buy directly from out-of-state vineyards, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, striking down laws banning a practice that has flourished because of the Internet and growing popularity of winery tours.

The 5-4 decision overturns laws in New York and Michigan, which supporters said were aimed at protecting local wineries and limiting underage drinkers from purchasing wine without showing proof of age. In all, 24 states have laws barring interstate shipments.

"If a state chooses to allow direct shipments of wine, it must do so on evenhanded terms," (Kennedy) wrote in an opinion joined by Justices Antonin Scalia, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blindpig Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #49
50. but what about beer??
We've got a 5% law in this wretched state and much that is tasty and high octane has been unavailable. Need to get rid of that entirely but in the meantime I'd love a case of Sierra Bigfoot Brandywine Style Ale! Or Dogfish Head 90 Minute Ale. Or....................
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #50
51. Same rationale would apply
But the problem for someone in South Carolina is does South Caroline permit ANY TYPE of direct selling? If the answer is NO, than this ruling does not apply, if yes, this ruling applies.

Note, the decision is that A state can NOT use the power reserved in the the State by the 21st amendment (That repealed Prohibition) to discriminate against out of state sellers. Thus if South Carolina Prohibits ALL beer over 5% than that is permitted under the 21st amendment. If South Carolina permit in state produced beer to be over 5%, but prohibits imports of beer over 5%, such a ban would violate the Commerce clause of the US Constitution AND not be saved by the 21st Amendment.

Thus the issue is this a rule that applies to both in-state and out of state producers? If yes, this ruling does NOT affect that rule. If the rule treats in-state producers different from out of state producers than that would be illegal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
highnooner Donating Member (373 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 06:54 PM
Response to Original message
61. Wine-Shipping Limits Overturned by U.S. High Court
May 16 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Supreme Court overturned two state laws that bar out-of-state wineries from shipping directly to customers, potentially boosting Internet and mail-order sales in the $23 billion wine industry.

The justices, ruling 5-4 today on New York and Michigan laws, said the traditional state authority over alcohol sales must yield to the constitutional requirements that states not discriminate against out-of-state businesses.

``If a state chooses to allow direct shipment of wine, it must do so on evenhanded terms,'' Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the court in Washington. The ruling threatens similar laws in at least six other states and possibly as many as 22.

The decision is a victory for small winemakers seeking to expand their businesses and a defeat for the wholesale distributors that are bypassed when wineries ship straight to consumers. Wine lovers around the country may have access to hundreds, if not thousands, of additional wines.

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000006&sid=aKPKbE6wOeYE&refer=home
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 06:54 PM
Response to Reply #61
62. I'm shocked! And
Estactic! :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
exsoccermom Donating Member (169 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 06:54 PM
Response to Reply #62
64. So, how soon can those of us in Maryland order wine?
This opens options. I bought my Aunt in Virginia some wine for her 85th birthday. We really enjoyed it. The bottle even had a special label for her. I would be great to legally do that in Maryland and other states. I wanted to send a special bottle of wine with a personalized label to my daughter for her 21st birthday, but it was illegal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
highnooner Donating Member (373 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 06:54 PM
Response to Reply #61
63. Oops! I didn't see the previous thread.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mr.Green93 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 06:54 PM
Response to Reply #61
65. Woo Hoo!
Ripple by mail.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uncle ray Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 08:19 PM
Response to Original message
68. ready for the punchline?
one of the lobbyists who pushed for this is Buddy Koch CEO of "The Wine Institute", married to Dorothy Bush-Koch, *'s little sister.

surprise!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 02:41 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC