One of my pet issues the past few years has been the direct interstate shipment of wine. Yeah, I know it sounds like an obscure and/or snobby issue, but in a moment, I'll tell you why it's not. For now, I'm just excited because the Supreme Court handed a
major victory
to consumers and wineries:
The Supreme Court ruled today, in a case of interest to millions of wine-drinkers and those who make a living in the multibillion-dollar industry, that people can buy wine directly from out-of-state vineyards.
In a 5-to-4 decision that struck down laws in New York and Michigan, and by extension calls into question the laws in 22 other states, the court held that laws that discriminate against out-of-state vineyards violate the Constitution's Commerce Clause, which empowers Congress to regulate interstate commerce.
"Laws such as those at issue contradict the principles underlying this rule by depriving citizens of their right to have access to other states' markets on equal terms," the majority held, in an opinion by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.
The states claimed that these laws were protected by the 21st amendment (the one which repealed Prohibition), which gives states special powers to regulate alcohol. The Supreme Court said that even armed with the 21st amendment, states could not discriminate against out-of-state wineries because it violates another, even more crucial part of the Constitution: the commerce clause, which almost always forbids states to discriminate against each other's goods.
The real reason these restrictive laws existed in the first place was to protect wine wholesalers - distributors who functioned as legally-enshrined middlemen, jacking up prices and limiting selection. If such laws existed in other areas, it would mean absurd (and unconstitutional) things like not being able to order apples directly from an out-of-state orchard, or a copy of Photoshop straight from Adobe.
(States tried to claim that the goal was to guard against underage drinking, but the Court didn't buy that. I mean, come on, do you really think teenagers are getting blitzed ordering Shiraz on the Internet?)
The winners here are ordinary consumers, who will soon be able to freely order wine from out-of-state vineyards, and, importantly, small vineyards who never had the clout to have their products carried by wholesalers. If you want to talk about supporting small farmers, these guys are exemplars of that group.
So, as I said above, there's nothing snobby at all about being concerned about the outcome here. If anything, had the wine wholesalers won, a powerful and well-financed elite lobby would have been marching off with a victory today. Again I say, the winners are ordinary folks and small vintners.
One final interesting note. The Court's majority lineup was a bit unusual: Kennedy wrote the opinion, joined by Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer and Scalia. Definitely an unusual mix. But I should also point out that the legal coalition which helped bring the suit was similarly mixed, including Clint Bollick and his Institute for Justice, a conservative/libertarian group, and Kathleen Sullivan, a liberal law professor at Stanford.
And now, I think I'll have a glass of wine!