Supreme Court Internet wine case/ the ruling will also make it harder for states to restrict Internet commerce on other

[JC]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7872639/

WASHINGTON - Raising the bar on states wanting to restrict online commerce, the Supreme Court ruled Monday that wine lovers may buy directly from out-of-state wineries, striking down laws banning a practice that has flourished because of the Internet and growing popularity of winery tours.

While the ruling only involves wine sales, industry groups expect that it will soon apply to beer and other alcoholic beverages currently regulated through state-licensed wholesalers and retailers.

Lawyers involved in the case say the ruling will also make it harder for states to restrict Internet commerce on other regulated items — from contact lenses to car insurance.

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.

“States have broad power to regulate liquor,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority. “This power, however, does not allow states to ban, or severely limit, the direct shipment of out-of-state wine while simultaneously authorizing direct shipment by in-state producers.”

'Evenhanded' policy required
“If a state chooses to allow direct shipments of wine, it must do so on evenhanded terms,” he wrote.

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

At issue was the 21st Amendment, which ended Prohibition in 1933 and granted states authority to regulate alcohol sales. Nearly half the states subsequently passed laws requiring outside wineries to sell their products through licensed wholesalers within the state.

But the Constitution also prohibits states from passing laws that discriminate against out-of-state businesses. That led to a challenge to laws in Michigan and New York, which allow direct shipments for in-state wineries but not out-of-state ones.

Kennedy wrote that states do not have the authority to regulate liquor simply to protect their economic interests.

The decision puts in doubt laws in 24 states that ban out-of-state shipments, although the opinion suggests the laws will be upheld so long as in-state and out-of-state wineries are treated equally.

As a result, states could choose all wineries to sell to consumers directly, but could also bar all wineries from doing so.

Thomas writes dissent
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 they 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 Rehnquist, as well as Justices Sandra Day O’Connor and John Paul Stevens.

Win for small wineries
The economic stakes are high in the $21.6 billion wine industry. Owners of small wineries, which have proliferated in recent years, say they can’t compete with huge companies unless they can sell directly to customers over the Internet or by allowing visitors to their wineries to ship bottles home.

But states collect millions of dollars in alcohol taxes and say the established system helps stem fraud and underage drinking.

The Washington-based Institute for Justice says the 24 states that ban direct shipments from out-of-state wineries are: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah and Vermont.

The cases are Granholm v. Heald, 03-1116; Michigan Beer & Wine Wholesalers Association v. Heald, 03-1120; and Swedenburg v. Kelly, 03-1274.

[stevo]

I did not know this law even existed until my wife and I took a trip to some SF vineyards and were not allowed to ship what we purchased. We limited ourselves to what we could carry home. It really sucked because of course a bottle of Merlot broke in the suitcase.

[Minnow]

How does restricting internet sales stem underage drinking? I can't imagine ordering booze online as a teenager. A case of Tango, please?! [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-confused.gif[/img]

[Bobby C]

Originally posted by: JC
The 5-4 decision...

Does this court ever put out a 6-3, 7-2, 8-1, or unanimous decision?

[biggame]

This is really great news. I can't imagine what state politicians are going to say in response to the lack of collection of "sin taxes"; especially in states like mine, Tennessee. Alabama and Tennessee have extremely high wine and liquor taxes compared to many other states, presumably CA. This could really help in unwinding a tax structure that has been tried and true for most states, but especially Bible Belt states.

It's got to be tougher and tougher for non-Internet businesses now. People, like me, buy more and more items over the Net. Not only are Net prices lower, but you also bypass state sales tax.

I recently had my pool table re-felted by an Austin billiards table dealer, and I mentioned to the guy that at least local dealers don't have to worrry about people buying pool tables over the Net. He quickly corrected me and told me that Net sales of pool tables was hurting their business.

[JC]

Originally posted by: Bobby C

Does this court ever put out a 6-3, 7-2, 8-1, or unanimous decision?

Lots of times. ACLU vs Reno, the internet pornography ban, they through it out 9-0.

A lot of times the decisions are split along the same justices with O'Connor being a swing vite one way or the other. What was unusual about this one was Stevens, the most liberal was aligned with Rehnquist and Thomas.

Bush/Gore was 5-4 on the major issue and 7-2 on some minor point.

The federal appellate courts seem to have more 3-0's than 2-1's, but the supreme court does geta lot of variety.

Excuse me while I get the door, my internet pool table is here.
;-)

[Onasoapbox]

Slowly but surely paving the way:
For LasVegas SportsBooks to write tickets on the internet out of state. All they really have to do is want it bad enough; which is questionable from what i read these days.
Of course the locals won't like it---a player going out of state to make a wager. But from what CBS news reported, other wine growers besides the liitle lady in MiddleBerg, Va; are not happy either.

Day0 Daaaaaooooo!
Keep hope alive.

[BuzzRavanaugh]

It really sucks to own a liquor store in Kansas [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-disgusted.gif[/img]

[bigboydan]

Originally posted by: Bobby C

Does this court ever put out a 6-3, 7-2, 8-1, or unanimous decision?

no, it usualy comes down to who pays the most money to buy your vote. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img]

[KidVegas]

"Protect minors" my ass. Thats the same shit you hear from the sleazy politicians that want to ban internet sportsbetting. Why don't they ban cigars and cigs if you want to protect minors? Oh thats right, the tobacco industry has the crooked politicians in their pockets.

[Mr Negative]

only a matter of time before states start trying to poach each other's citizens with online lottery sales. would seem like a nearly identical set of issues (interstate commerce vs protecting minors).

[Onasoapbox]

Never let us forget : We are the UNITED states. I don't know how much we are united about, but that's what this country is called.
As for Lottery Tickets. North Carolina does not have a lottery. Their citizens for years have been supporting Virginia's!!!!!! What a joke.

[Juice]

At issue was the 21st Amendment, which ended Prohibition in 1933 and granted states authority to regulate alcohol sales. Nearly half the states subsequently passed laws requiring outside wineries to sell their products through licensed wholesalers within the state.

But the Constitution also prohibits states from passing laws that discriminate against out-of-state businesses. That led to a challenge to laws in Michigan and New York, which allow direct shipments for in-state wineries but not out-of-state ones.

Kennedy wrote that states do not have the authority to regulate liquor simply to protect their economic interests.


Paragraph one will evenutally read all bets on sporting and racing events must be done thru a liscensee of the state.

Paragraph 2 will be twisted so that it only meant physical goods. Transmission of money thru wire or phone to another state will not go on for long. Without loud crying from the states, where is our piece.

Kennedy writes that states do have the authority to regulate gambling to protect thier economic interest. Gambling has been shown to..........................so to be able to adress these issues the states need.........plus some lobbyist who will say........so on and so forth until they twist it into whatever they want to be as JC has been trying to point out to all.

[Juice]

Bottom line, greed kills. Wine is one thing and gambling another. It makes sense to ceed to Vegas but whoever said we wanted that headache. It sounds good on paper but the logistics are nightmarish. Goes to protectionism in the end. If gambling laws go into place for this, the laws that allow interstate internet commerce will come under severe scrutiny and adjustment.

[RackMan]

BOTTOM LINE...The PURITANS NEED to go back to Europe!


I know it has been a few hundred Years but...LEAVE US THE F*CK ALONE ALREADY!!!

[The Actuary]

Funny-there was a revolution over a tea tax and now your LS heros would tax air if possible-


there was a case recently of the DOJ going after a guy who sold a million pot seeds into the US-he was from a country where it is legal-

will be interesting to see what happens.

[Juice]

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: stevo

I did not know this law even existed until my wife and I took a trip to some SF vineyards and were not allowed to ship what we purchased. We limited ourselves to what we could carry home. It really sucked because of course a bottle of Merlot broke in the suitcase.</end quote></div>

This was the thread. Sorry would post longer but guest just showed.

[stevo]

I got it Juice, Sorry I misunderstood but you and I have had a few good debates..........I answered in other thread.

FWIW. You dont get pissed about the law till the wine breaks in your luggage.[img]i/expressions/brokenheart.gif[/img]