Supreme Court, and wine.

David_Bu3ker · June 17, 2019, 2:49pm

Today’s opinions have had a few surprises.

Troy_Stark · June 17, 2019, 4:04pm

I have now lived in two states (MN and FL) that supposedly do not allow interstate wine shipments from retailers, yet I’ve never had an issue receiving wine from certain online retailers.

The articles linked suggest that UPS and FedEx do not accept alcohol shipments bound for the states that do not allow these shipments, but I have received shipments from both carriers. I’m a lawyer but too lazy to look into what loophole might be in play here. I actually suspect it’s simply a matter of enforcement being too difficult to implement, so various retailers just roll the dice. Thoughts?

Neal.Mollen · June 17, 2019, 4:08pm

Troy, I think you should delete that post. No reason to get anyone in trouble

Gray_G · June 17, 2019, 4:25pm

+++++

Anton_D · June 17, 2019, 4:31pm

He must have become habituated to his usual style of posting blink links and now needs to up the ante.

AndrewH · June 17, 2019, 5:29pm

Seeking or opposing? Either way, good luck (although luck likely better if opposing).

Neal.Mollen · June 17, 2019, 6:41pm

Seeking. The US is seeking cert from the same opinion so odds are much better than usual

Troy_Stark · June 17, 2019, 6:44pm

I removed the names to protect the innocent.

Neal.Mollen · June 17, 2019, 7:21pm

Except for yours!

Troy_Stark · June 17, 2019, 7:21pm

Hearsay!

Kevin_Porter · June 19, 2019, 1:12am

Good luck!

Thanks!

4 opinions today, none of them about wine. The double jeopardy case is an interesting one. By a 7-2 vote, the Court reaffirmed the “dual sovereign” exception to the double jeopardy doctrine. As a matter of constitutional law, a person can’t be tried twice for the “same offense,” but for ages the Court has interpreted this to mean violation of the same law, so if two “sovereigns” (a state and the feds) have a law against the same behavior, each can get a crack at the defendant. What is interesting here is (a) four votes were necessary to take the case but only 2 justices dissented and only one (Gorsuch) would do away with the exception. So why did the other justices voting to review do so just to say “same as it ever was?” (b) Gorsuch’s dissent reads like an ACLU brief. Bet a lot of folks didn’t see that coming

I haven’t read Justice Gorsuch’s dissent but I can’t help but wonder if his primary concern is for actors who might receive an executive pardon from federal charges but find themselves subject to state prosecution.

Neal.Mollen · June 19, 2019, 1:35am

Good luck!

Thanks!

4 opinions today, none of them about wine. The double jeopardy case is an interesting one. By a 7-2 vote, the Court reaffirmed the “dual sovereign” exception to the double jeopardy doctrine. As a matter of constitutional law, a person can’t be tried twice for the “same offense,” but for ages the Court has interpreted this to mean violation of the same law, so if two “sovereigns” (a state and the feds) have a law against the same behavior, each can get a crack at the defendant. What is interesting here is (a) four votes were necessary to take the case but only 2 justices dissented and only one (Gorsuch) would do away with the exception. So why did the other justices voting to review do so just to say “same as it ever was?” (b) Gorsuch’s dissent reads like an ACLU brief. Bet a lot of folks didn’t see that coming

I haven’t read Justice Gorsuch’s dissent but I can’t help but wonder if his primary concern is for actors who might receive an executive pardon from federal charges but find themselves subject to state prosecution.

His views were probably popular on PA Avenue

Jim_Brennan · June 24, 2019, 2:26pm

Doesn’t look like anything today on wine either.

T_Melloni · June 24, 2019, 4:19pm

Today’s decision in Iancu v. Brunetti is an interesting one. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-302_e29g.pdf
Funny how a full spectrum of Justices get FUCT under the First Amendment.

CFu · June 24, 2019, 4:31pm

If you guys want to talk General SCOTUS stuff check out the great thread Corey started

https://www.wineberserkers.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=152834

Neal.Mollen · June 24, 2019, 4:56pm

More opinions on Wednesday and perhaps either Thursday or Friday. Wine decision this week for sure

Matt_A_u_s_t_i_n · June 24, 2019, 6:27pm

This decision has me wondering if the TTB will have to start approving some more controversial wine labels as well. Regulation of alcohol seems to generally allow for greater controls, but it would be interesting to see how a challenge to a Fuct wine label would play out.

pnitze · June 24, 2019, 6:37pm

ScotusBlog was engaging in reasoned speculation this morning that the opinion will be written by Justice Alito, because he is the sole justice not to have authored any opinions from the January term, and this is the last January case outstanding on the docket.

My hunch is that an Alito-authored opinion is good news for consumers, although the scope of the opinion could be quite narrow.

Jason_M_P · June 24, 2019, 7:39pm

There is an interesting case pending right now in the USDC Western District of Tennessee related to a Florida wine shop’s inability to ship to a resident in Tennessee. Alvarez and UVA Wines, LLC v. Tennessee Alcoholic Beverage Commission, Case No. 2:19-cv-02151. I will continue to monitor how this one plays out. TABC has filed a Motion to Dismiss, which is still pending. Trial is scheduled for March 2020. In the meantime, the Court has ordered the parties to mediation.

Neal.Mollen · June 24, 2019, 8:43pm

I’m interested to hear why you think an Alito-led majority would be good news for consumers. I don’t necessarily disagree, but I’d be interested in hearing your thought process