Healy v. Beer Institute
1989 U.S. LEXIS 3041, 109 S. Ct. 2491, 491 U.S. 324 (1989)
Rule of Law:
A state statute that has the practical effect of controlling commercial activity wholly outside the state's borders, or that facially discriminates against interstate commerce, violates the Dormant Commerce Clause, and this violation is not saved by the Twenty-first Amendment's grant of liquor regulatory authority.
Facts:
- Connecticut observed that its domestic retail beer prices were consistently higher than prices in bordering states (Massachusetts, New York, and Rhode Island).
- Connecticut residents living near state borders frequently traveled across state lines to purchase beer at lower prices.
- In 1981, Connecticut enacted a statute requiring out-of-state shippers to post bottle, can, and case prices for beer to be sold in Connecticut, and to affirm under oath that these prices were and would remain no higher than the lowest prices charged in border states during the effective period, deducting any discounts.
- In 1984, Connecticut amended its statute to require affirmation only at the time of posting that prices in Connecticut were no higher than prices in border states, explicitly allowing out-of-state prices to change after the Connecticut posting.
- However, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 30-63a(b) continued to make it unlawful for out-of-state shippers to sell beer in Connecticut at a price higher than the price at which beer is or would be sold in any bordering state during the month covered by the posting.
- Connecticut's Department of Liquor Control issued a "Declaratory Ruling" interpreting the 1984 statute to mean that affirmation was required only at the moment of posting (the sixth day of each month), with no restrictions on changing border-state prices afterward.
- Massachusetts law requires brewers to post their prices on the first day of the month, to become effective on the first day of the following month, which locks in Massachusetts prices for an entire month.
- New York law requires promotional discounts to remain in effect for 180 days, and Massachusetts, New York, and Rhode Island permit volume discounts, but Connecticut does not.
Procedural Posture:
- In 1982, a brewers’ trade association and various beer producers and importers (appellees) filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, challenging the 1981 version of Connecticut's price-affirmation statute as unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause.
- The District Court upheld the 1981 law, relying on Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc. v. Hostetter.
- The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed, holding the 1981 statute facially invalid under the Commerce Clause because it practically prohibited out-of-state shippers from selling beer in neighboring states below their Connecticut posted price (United States Brewers Assn., Inc. v. Healy, 692 F.2d 275 (CA2 1982), referred to as Healy I).
- The Supreme Court summarily affirmed the Second Circuit's decision in Healy I.
- Following the 1984 amendments, the appellees filed a new suit in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing that the amended law still had the same unconstitutional effect.
- The District Court upheld the 1984 statute, as modified by the legislature and the Department of Liquor Control's declaratory ruling, resting its decision on Seagram and distinguishing Brown-Forman Distillers Corp. v. New York State Liquor Authority.
- The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit again reversed, holding that the 1984 law (even as interpreted) violated the Commerce Clause by controlling out-of-state beer prices (In re Beer Institute, 849 F.2d 753 (CA2 1988), referred to as Healy II).
- The Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction to review the Court of Appeals' decision in Healy II.
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 beer-price-affirmation statute, which requires out-of-state shippers to affirm that their in-state prices are no higher than prices in neighboring states at the time of posting, and which applies only to those engaged in interstate commerce, violate the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Blackmun
Yes, Connecticut's beer-price-affirmation statute violates the Commerce Clause because it has the practical effect of controlling commercial activity outside the state's borders and facially discriminates against interstate commerce, neither of which is saved by the Twenty-first Amendment. The Court held that the Connecticut statute has the undeniable effect of controlling commercial activity wholly outside the State's boundary. This "contemporaneous" affirmation statute, despite its wording, interacts with other states' laws to produce extraterritorial effects similar to the "prospective" statute struck down in Brown-Forman Distillers Corp. v. New York State Liquor Authority. For example, the interaction with Massachusetts' posting requirements means a brewer must account for future Connecticut prices when setting Massachusetts prices, effectively precluding alteration of out-of-state prices. Similarly, New York's 180-day promotional discount rule would force brewers to lock in discounted New York prices as a ceiling for Connecticut prices for that entire period. The statute also deters volume discounts allowed in border states because the lowest discounted price would become the regular price in Connecticut. This creates "price gridlock" and prevents competitive pricing based on local market conditions, a scenario the Commerce Clause is meant to preclude. Second, the statute is facially discriminatory because it applies only to brewers or shippers who sell beer in Connecticut and at least one border state, thus penalizing engagement in interstate commerce without a neutral justification. The Court explicitly rejected Connecticut's reliance on the Twenty-first Amendment, reiterating that the Amendment does not immunize state laws from Commerce Clause invalidation when those laws regulate liquor sales in other states. Furthermore, the Court squarely held that Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc. v. Hostetter, which upheld a retrospective affirmation statute, is no longer good law because retrospective statutes also inherently exert extraterritorial control over pricing decisions in other states by tying future maximum prices to past lowest prices.
Dissenting - Chief Justice Rehnquist
No, Connecticut's beer-price-affirmation statute does not violate the Commerce Clause, as it is designed to achieve low prices for its residents and should be afforded greater deference under the Twenty-first Amendment. Chief Justice Rehnquist argued that the Connecticut statute is fundamentally different from the minimum price statute struck down in Baldwin v. G. A. F. Seelig, Inc., which aimed to eliminate competitive advantages of out-of-state producers. Connecticut, having no local brewers, merely seeks to ensure its residents receive prices as low as those in neighboring states. He contended that there is no concrete evidence that the regulation impermissibly affects beer prices in other states, viewing the majority's concerns as a "personal forecast" of business strategies rather than a legal compulsion. He also found the facial discrimination argument unconvincing, noting the absence of local brewers or shippers doing business solely within Connecticut. Most importantly, he asserted that the Twenty-first Amendment grants states "virtually complete control" over liquor regulation, creating an exception to the normal operation of the Commerce Clause. He believed this increased authority should validate Connecticut's efforts to secure favorable prices for its consumers, lamenting that the Court provided greater Commerce Clause protection to beer producers than to milk producers.
Concurring - Justice Scalia
Yes, Connecticut's beer-price-affirmation statute violates the Commerce Clause. Justice Scalia concurred with the judgment, stating that the statute's invalidity is fully established by its facial discrimination against interstate commerce, as it imposes price restrictions exclusively on those who sell beer in both Connecticut and surrounding states. This discrimination, he noted, eliminates any immunity provided by the Twenty-first Amendment. He agreed that Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc. v. Hostetter must be overruled. However, Justice Scalia declined to join the majority's "more expansive analysis" regarding the extraterritorial effects on pricing in other states. He found this rationale unnecessary and questionable, arguing that many valid state laws could incidentally affect pricing decisions in other states (e.g., a simple maximum price regulation within Connecticut). He expressed concern that such an approach would lead Commerce Clause jurisprudence to "degenerate into disputes over degree of economic effect."
Analysis:
This case significantly clarified the scope of the Dormant Commerce Clause and the Twenty-first Amendment, firmly establishing that states cannot project their regulatory authority extraterritorially to control prices in other states, even for alcoholic beverages. By explicitly overruling Seagram, the Court eliminated any lingering uncertainty about the unconstitutionality of all types of state price-affirmation statutes that tie in-state prices to out-of-state prices. Future cases involving state economic regulations affecting out-of-state commerce will rely heavily on the Brown-Forman framework as reinforced and expanded here, particularly the emphasis on the "practical effect" of a statute and the potential for "price gridlock" if similar laws proliferated.
