DIRECT SHIPPING: KENTUCKY WHOLESALERS APPEAL
The WSWA, along with other industry groups, has filed an amicus brief with the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals that argues a lower court was wrong to throw out Kentucky’s requirement that all alcohol sales be sold face-to-face (purchased at the winery).
In December, a district court judge ruled that the face-to-face requirement discriminated against out-of-state wineries, but upheld the volume cap (50,000 gallons or less) to self-distribute. A separate state law limiting purchases to two cases per visit was also upheld as constitutional. Afterwards, the state decided not to appeal since the judge upheld the volume cap, leaving the Wine and Spirits Wholesalers of Kentucky to do the deed.
“Any notion that a State violates the dormant Commerce Clause merely by passing an even-handed law that does not allow any business to operate in the State in the manner that some out-of-state businesses prefer or find most profitable was rejected by the Supreme Court long ago,” according to the WSWA amicus brief filed today (Wednesday, April 18).
The WSWA goes on to cite a similar court cases in Maine where a district court said that Maine’s requirement of face-to-face sales is “meant to recognize 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.’”
A decision from the 6th Circuit is not expected until sometime later this year. You can find a copy of the amicus brief on www.wswa.org.
In December, a district court judge ruled that the face-to-face requirement discriminated against out-of-state wineries, but upheld the volume cap (50,000 gallons or less) to self-distribute. A separate state law limiting purchases to two cases per visit was also upheld as constitutional. Afterwards, the state decided not to appeal since the judge upheld the volume cap, leaving the Wine and Spirits Wholesalers of Kentucky to do the deed.
“Any notion that a State violates the dormant Commerce Clause merely by passing an even-handed law that does not allow any business to operate in the State in the manner that some out-of-state businesses prefer or find most profitable was rejected by the Supreme Court long ago,” according to the WSWA amicus brief filed today (Wednesday, April 18).
The WSWA goes on to cite a similar court cases in Maine where a district court said that Maine’s requirement of face-to-face sales is “meant to recognize 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.’”
A decision from the 6th Circuit is not expected until sometime later this year. You can find a copy of the amicus brief on www.wswa.org.
posted at 11:28 AM
<< Home