U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE RECOMMENDS FACE TO FACE WINE SALES
Champions of the 3-tier have reason to celebrate. A U.S. District Judge in Maine recommended that the state opt out of legalizing direct wine sales in favor of face to face transactions, upholding the state’s current winery statutes. In answer to Granholm, Judge Margaret J. Kravchuk wrote that the benefit of enforcing face to face sales as a way to prevent underage access outweighs any burdens posed towards interstate commerce. Said Judge Kravchuk:
Maine’s current law “simply does not impose any cognizable burden on interstate commerce that could possibly outweigh the putative local benefits of regulating minors’ access to alcohol.”
She added that “wine is an alcoholic beverage that is contraband when placed in certain minors’ hands, and the State has concluded that mail order transactions cannot reliably be policed in order to protect certain minors from themselves.”
Although states must take necessary steps to comply with Granholm, Judge Kravchuk’s strong words demonstrate the power that is still left to the states to regulate as they see fit. The recommendation will now go on to a district Judge.
“I do not think this proposition really deserves any protracted discussion. If the requirement of 'face-to-face' or 'on-premises' transactions were applied to an innocuous article of interstate commerce such as clothing, which is not subject to any age restriction or other public health restriction (let alone the Twenty- first Amendment), then it would be difficult to understand what rational basis might exist for prohibiting mail order purchases. But here the patently obvious circumstances are that the subject matter of the statutory scheme is wine, wine is an alcoholic beverage that is contraband when placed in certain minors' hands, and the state has concluded that mail order transactions cannot reliably be policed in order to protect certain minors from themselves. It is not for this court to second-guess that policy determination in favor of the plaintiffs' free market perspective,” she wrote.
WHERE DOES THE WSWA STAND? The Wine and Spirits Wholesalers of American (WSWA) supports the decision because “it exemplifies how a state can comply with last year’s Granholm v. Heald Supreme Court ruling and continue to uphold the safeguards that prevent unaccountable alcohol sales,” said the organization.
“Magistrate Judge Kravchuk clearly understands the risks that Internet, phone and mail order alcohol sales pose to the health of our communities and that wine is alcohol,” said WSWA President and CEO Juanita D. Duggan.
“This decision ought to encourage other state officials to resist attempts by wineries who are demanding to opt out of the regulated system of alcohol safeguards through direct sales, and all those seeking to undermine a state’s broad authority to regulate alcohol.”
Maine’s current law “simply does not impose any cognizable burden on interstate commerce that could possibly outweigh the putative local benefits of regulating minors’ access to alcohol.”
She added that “wine is an alcoholic beverage that is contraband when placed in certain minors’ hands, and the State has concluded that mail order transactions cannot reliably be policed in order to protect certain minors from themselves.”
Although states must take necessary steps to comply with Granholm, Judge Kravchuk’s strong words demonstrate the power that is still left to the states to regulate as they see fit. The recommendation will now go on to a district Judge.
“I do not think this proposition really deserves any protracted discussion. If the requirement of 'face-to-face' or 'on-premises' transactions were applied to an innocuous article of interstate commerce such as clothing, which is not subject to any age restriction or other public health restriction (let alone the Twenty- first Amendment), then it would be difficult to understand what rational basis might exist for prohibiting mail order purchases. But here the patently obvious circumstances are that the subject matter of the statutory scheme is wine, wine is an alcoholic beverage that is contraband when placed in certain minors' hands, and the state has concluded that mail order transactions cannot reliably be policed in order to protect certain minors from themselves. It is not for this court to second-guess that policy determination in favor of the plaintiffs' free market perspective,” she wrote.
WHERE DOES THE WSWA STAND? The Wine and Spirits Wholesalers of American (WSWA) supports the decision because “it exemplifies how a state can comply with last year’s Granholm v. Heald Supreme Court ruling and continue to uphold the safeguards that prevent unaccountable alcohol sales,” said the organization.
“Magistrate Judge Kravchuk clearly understands the risks that Internet, phone and mail order alcohol sales pose to the health of our communities and that wine is alcohol,” said WSWA President and CEO Juanita D. Duggan.
“This decision ought to encourage other state officials to resist attempts by wineries who are demanding to opt out of the regulated system of alcohol safeguards through direct sales, and all those seeking to undermine a state’s broad authority to regulate alcohol.”
posted at 9:23 AM
<< Home