Granholm v. Heald
544 U.S. 460 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state's regulatory scheme that permits in-state wineries to ship wine directly to consumers but prohibits out-of-state wineries from doing so violates the dormant Commerce Clause. Section 2 of the Twenty-first Amendment does not authorize states to enact laws that discriminate against interstate commerce to give a competitive advantage to local producers.
Facts:
- Michigan and New York both utilized a three-tier system for alcohol distribution, requiring separate licenses for producers, wholesalers, and retailers.
- Michigan law allowed its approximately 40 in-state wineries to obtain a license to ship wine directly to in-state consumers.
- Michigan law, however, completely banned out-of-state wineries from shipping wine directly to Michigan consumers, forcing them to sell through the state's wholesalers and retailers.
- New York law allowed in-state wineries that used New York grapes to obtain a license for direct shipment to consumers.
- To gain direct-shipping privileges in New York, an out-of-state winery was required to establish a physical branch factory, office, or storeroom within the state.
- Domaine Alfred, a small California winery, was unable to fill orders from Michigan consumers due to the direct-shipment ban.
- Juanita Swedenburg and David Lucas, small winery owners in Virginia and California respectively, were unable to ship wine to their customers in New York because of the restrictive in-state presence requirement.
Procedural Posture:
- In the Michigan case, residents and an out-of-state winery sued state officials in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, which upheld the state law.
- The plaintiffs in the Michigan case appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which reversed the trial court and found the law unconstitutional.
- In the New York case, out-of-state wineries and in-state consumers sued state officials in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, which found the law unconstitutional.
- The State of New York appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which reversed the trial court and upheld the law.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari in both cases to resolve the conflict between the circuit courts.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state's regulatory scheme that permits in-state wineries to ship alcohol directly to consumers but restricts the ability of out-of-state wineries to do so violate the dormant Commerce Clause in light of § 2 of the Twenty-first Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Kennedy
Yes. A state's regulatory scheme that permits in-state wineries to ship directly to consumers while prohibiting out-of-state wineries from doing so violates the dormant Commerce Clause and is not saved by the Twenty-first Amendment. State laws that mandate differential treatment between in-state and out-of-state economic interests are virtually per se invalid. The Twenty-first Amendment was intended to restore to states the power to regulate alcohol as they had under the Wilson and Webb-Kenyon Acts, which did not authorize discrimination against out-of-state goods. Modern precedent, particularly Bacchus Imports, Ltd. v. Dias, confirms that the Amendment does not immunize protectionist state laws from Commerce Clause scrutiny. The states failed to demonstrate that their discriminatory regimes were necessary to advance legitimate local purposes, such as preventing underage drinking or ensuring tax collection, as these goals could be achieved through reasonable, nondiscriminatory alternatives like licensing requirements and adult signature verification.
Dissenting - Justice Stevens
No. The state laws do not violate the dormant Commerce Clause because the Twenty-first Amendment places commerce in alcoholic beverages in a special category. The text of Section 2 of the Amendment expressly grants states the power to regulate the transportation or importation of intoxicating liquors in violation of their own laws. The generations that ratified the Eighteenth and Twenty-first Amendments did not view alcohol as an ordinary article of commerce and expressly authorized the kind of state-level control, or 'balkanization,' that the majority condemns. The plain meaning of the Amendment's text, as understood by justices like Brandeis in early cases such as State Bd. of Equalization of Cal. v. Young’s Market Co., should control, exempting these state laws from dormant Commerce Clause scrutiny.
Dissenting - Justice Thomas
No. The state laws are constitutional because the Webb-Kenyon Act, whose principles were constitutionalized by the Twenty-first Amendment, displaces any negative Commerce Clause barrier to this type of state regulation. The text and history of the Act demonstrate that it was intended to empower states to regulate all liquor importation, even through discriminatory laws, thereby overturning this Court's prior cases that had protected direct shipments. The Court's early Twenty-first Amendment precedents correctly held that states have plenary power to regulate liquor imports, including the power to discriminate. The majority's reliance on a flawed historical argument and its misreading of precedent, particularly the Bacchus decision, improperly seizes back regulatory power that the Constitution explicitly returned to the states.
Analysis:
This decision significantly limits the scope of state power under the Twenty-first Amendment, clarifying that it does not create a wholesale exception to the Commerce Clause's nondiscrimination principle. By striking down protectionist state laws, the Court harmonized the regulation of alcohol with that of other goods in interstate commerce, preventing states from creating trade barriers to protect local industries. The ruling had a major practical impact, invalidating similar laws in many other states and opening a national market for direct-to-consumer wine sales via the Internet, which has been particularly beneficial for small wineries without large distribution networks.
Unlock the full brief for Granholm v. Heald