The grapes have been freed!
Courtesy of Professor Volokh, we have Professor Bainbridge's post on today's Supreme Court decision that bans on interstate wine sales are unconstitutional. Professor Zywicki, a fellow Conspirator, posted right before Professor Volokh, referencing the post at SCOTUSblog, as well as his own earlier articles on the matter, and an FTC report. SCOTUSblog has links to the syllabus; Justice Kennedy's majority opinion, joined by Justices Scalia, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer; Justice Thomas's lead dissent, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Stevens and O'Connor; and Justice Stevens's dissent, joined by Justice O'Connor.
I have to say, I'm a little surprised it was such a close decision. The laws prohibiting interstate shipment of wine directly to consumers (when the state allows in-state wineries to do it) are flagrantly unconstitutional. There can be no purpose to these laws other than to favor in-state businesses over out of state businesses. Michigan is still claiming (with a straight face, no less!) that this is the end of the world, because it will permit "internet-savvy teenagers" to buy not just wine, but beer! and gin! over the internet. (That from a snippet on NPR this evening.) Because in-state wineries could certainly never unwittingly sell alcohol to minors over the internet. Yuppers, that there is a uniquely interstate problem.
More when I've actually read the opinion and dissents. I'm going to be really annoyed (and lose all kinds of respect for the dissenters) if any of the Justices actually bought that selling-booze-to-kids argument. The only way to prevent kids using the internet to buy booze is to prohibit direct shipment altogether. Same goes for the 21st Amendment argument. In fact, I'm having a really hard time thinking of a rationale for dissenting that I would respect.
I have to say, I'm a little surprised it was such a close decision. The laws prohibiting interstate shipment of wine directly to consumers (when the state allows in-state wineries to do it) are flagrantly unconstitutional. There can be no purpose to these laws other than to favor in-state businesses over out of state businesses. Michigan is still claiming (with a straight face, no less!) that this is the end of the world, because it will permit "internet-savvy teenagers" to buy not just wine, but beer! and gin! over the internet. (That from a snippet on NPR this evening.) Because in-state wineries could certainly never unwittingly sell alcohol to minors over the internet. Yuppers, that there is a uniquely interstate problem.
More when I've actually read the opinion and dissents. I'm going to be really annoyed (and lose all kinds of respect for the dissenters) if any of the Justices actually bought that selling-booze-to-kids argument. The only way to prevent kids using the internet to buy booze is to prohibit direct shipment altogether. Same goes for the 21st Amendment argument. In fact, I'm having a really hard time thinking of a rationale for dissenting that I would respect.