I received an email from my third party shipper yesterday informing me that, until further notice, they are not allowed to ship to the following states, regardless of whether a winery has a license to do so or not:
Alabama
Arkansas
Delaware
Kentucky (felony)
Mississippi
Oklahoma
Rhode Island and of course
Utah
Note that this is a major third party shipper used by many throughout CA so this will affect quite a few wineries. My guess is that other third party shippers are getting the same word, so you may see many wineries informing those who live in these states to prepare NOT to receive direct shipments in the near future.
This is getting crazy, and it’s all driven by in-state lawmakers feeling heat from in-state wineries, in-state retailers, and mainly in-state wholesalers. What can we all do? Consider contacting your local congress person, consider contacting FreeTheGrapes and other organizations that are fighting for consumer rights, etc.
My local Fedex facility in MD told me so far so good in terms of receiving wine , in fact the manager and I had a nice discussion about wine and where to get it. She had no idea about the 3 tier efforts to restrict wine shipments to individuals.
Crazy stuff. We need SCOTUS to take this up(I believe similar cases are winding through lower courts) as this is a clear violation of the Interstate Commerce Clause.
Granholm vs. Heald will be applied to all wine shipments - winery direct/retailers/auction houses - in the near future.
“In an opinion written by Justice Kennedy, the Court ruled that restricting the ability of out-of-state wineries to ship directly to consumers violates the U.S. Constitution dormant Commerce Clause in light of Section 2 of the 21 st amendment. “States have a broad power to regulate liquor,” he wrote. “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. If a state chooses to allow direct shipment of wine, it must do so on evenhanded terms. Without demonstrating the need for discrimination, New York and Michigan have enacted regulations that disadvantage out-of-state wine producers. Under our Commerce Clause jurisprudence, these regulations cannot stand.” States must extend equal privileges to in-state and out-of-state wineries.”
This whole mess has really stopped me from buying futures and some higher dollar wines this winter. I’m worried I’ll order a bunch then they’ll stop shipping and the wine will be stranded. Has anybody had this happen yet?
it would be one of those terrible times when I would be forced to rekindle long-distance friendships.
“hey person I haven’t talked to since college! I’m coming to visit your town for the week and would love to see you! Also, be on the lookout for a large box with my name on it at your house. Kthanks!”
My last order at one store went in before they stopped shipping to NY. It had to make several hops before I could get the wine. I get nervous about out of state orders as well.
On the plus side it helps me cut down on wine buying.
Granholm expressly reserved the retail question, and even if it were extended to retail operations, the Granholm analysis would only work where there is discrimination (i.e., where the state permits shipments within, but not from outside, the state. I suspect that, the distribution oligarchs would mostly be happy to surrender in-state shipping to protect their sheltered market from out of state competition. That’s especially true since many retailers already do their own delivery (sometimes free) in their metro areas.
How has Granholm helped w/r/t shipments from producers? This thread suggests that the answer is “not much.”
One of the more tragic recent opinions by the 5th Circuit, which directly addresses the retail question where there is discrimination (i.e., where the state permits shipments within, but nor from outside, the state).
In Texas, Granholm allows direct shipping from wineries, but no direct out of state-to Texas retail. Texas retailers can ship directly within Texas, though.
Note also that Texas Package Stores Association v. Fine Wine attempted to bring this issue to SCOTUS. Petition for writ was filed. Briefing submitted by both sides. Petition denied after briefing November 28, 2016. So to me, this is a dead issue right now. States are entitled to use hyper-protectionist 3 tiered systems for controlling retail alcohol shipments under the 21st amendment, and the interstate commerce clause doesn’t trump it.
Yup. The idea that Graholm helps here is uninformed.
A State which chooses to ban the sale and consumption of alcohol altogether could bar its importation; and, as our history shows, it would have to do so to make its laws effective. States may also assume direct control of liquor distribution through state-run outlets or funnel sales through the three-tier system. We have previously recognized that the three-tier system itself is
“unquestionably legitimate.” North Dakota v. United States, 495 U.S. at 432; see also id. at 447 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment) (“The Twenty-first Amendment . . . empowers North Dakota to
require that all liquor sold for use in the State be purchased from a licensed in-state wholesaler”). State policies are protected under the Twenty-first Amendment when they treat liquor produced out of state the same as its domestic equivalent. The instant cases, in contrast, involve straightforward attempts to discriminate in favor of local producers.
The issue is the retailer, not the liquor, and why I have such an issue with it. Jameson can be sold in Texas. It can be shipped to your front door in Texas. So Texas has acknowledged that Jameson Irish Whiskey is acceptable for import and distribution. But an out of state retailer is precluded from shipping said Jameson to my front door. I just cannot understand how, under any circumstance, that does not directly conflict with interstate commerce.
Lord knows it would be nice even if we landed on a middle ground and someone said “intoxicating liquors” doesn’t mean beer and wine, but actual spirits. at least I’d be able to buy wine online, even if I couldn’t hunt down nice bottles of scotch.
TX retailers may not ship wine outside of a local delivery area, defined as across county lines or within 2 miles of city bounderies. This was to eliminate any potential claims of discrimination.
This reinforces Neal’s suspicion about the willingness to surrender in-state shipping rights to block out-of-state competition.
GOOD NEWS OUT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. The Liquor Commission there wanted to ban shipments from out-of-state wine retailers, wine auction houses and wine-of-the-month clubs. But a grassroots effort by consumers contacting lawmakers in that state and lobbying by the National Association of Wine Retailers KILLED THE ANTI-SHIPPING BILL.
![[wow.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/7/7d450e9830889c8943b674446a21b7254cad657e.gif "wow"){kind=small}