ILNews

7th Circuit affirms, reverses wine ruling

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has recognized Indiana's interest in keeping wine out of minors' hands, ruling that Hoosiers who want to order alcohol online or by phone will have to first make face-to-face contact at a winery to verify their age before being allowed to make the purchase.

The judges also cited the U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding Indiana's voter ID law in its reasoning.

An 11-page opinion came Thursday afternoon in Patrick L. Baude, et al. v. David L. Heath, Chairman of the Indiana Alcohol and Tobacco Commission, and Wine and Spirits Wholesalers of Indiana, Nos. 07-3323 and 07-3338, an appeal that came following an August 2007 ruling by then-U.S. District Judge John D. Tinder in Indianapolis. He ruled that part of the state's 2006 law banning out-of-state wineries from shipping to Indiana customers without face-to-face contact was unconstitutional, finding that the requirement created a trade barrier for wineries by requiring them to set up shop in Indiana or limit their potential market to buyers willing to travel to them.

But the 7th Circuit disagreed with that notion and reinstated the in-person contact rule, noting that the absence of face-to-face age verification made it easier for minors to have wine sent to them. The appellate panel - author Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook, and Judges William Bauer and Richard Posner - rejected plaintiffs' arguments that in-person verification by photo ID is ineffective and that online verification is just as effective. Instead, it relied on the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding Indiana's voter ID law in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 129 S. Ct. 1610 (2008).

"Indiana thinks that in-person verification with photo ID helps to reduce cheating on legal rules, for both buying wine and voting (and perhaps other subjects)," Chief Judge Easterbrook wrote. "After the Supreme Court held ... that a belief that in-person verification with photo ID reduces vote fraud has enough support to withstand a challenge under the first amendment, it would be awfully hard to take judicial notice that in-person verification with photo ID has no effect on wine fraud and therefore flunks the interstate commerce clause."

The 7th Circuit affirmed Judge Tinder on the wholesale-permitting aspect of the law, finding that the wholesale clause protects Indiana's wine wholesalers at the expense of Indiana consumers and out-of-state wineries.

Now, the case is remanded to the federal court in Indianapolis for proceedings consistent with this opinion. Judge Tinder has since been elevated to the 7th Circuit, so a new judge will be assigned to the case. Indiana Lawyer couldn't reach attorneys after the ruling to learn whether a rehearing or higher court review will be requested.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. A traditional parade of attorneys? Really Evansville? Y'all need to get out more. When is the traditional parade of notaries? Nurses? Sanitation workers? Pole dancers? I gotta wonder, do throngs of admiring citizens gather to laud these marching servants of the constitution? "Show us your billing records!!!" Hoping some video gets posted. Ours is not a narcissistic profession by any chance, is it? Nah .....

  2. My previous comment not an aside at court. I agree with smith. Good call. Just thought posting here a bit on the if it bleeds it leads side. Most attorneys need to think of last lines of story above.

  3. Hello everyone I'm Gina and I'm here for the exact same thing you are. I have the wonderful joy of waking up every morning to my heart being pulled out and sheer terror of what DCS is going to Throw at me and my family today.Let me start from the !bebeginning.My daughter lost all rights to her 3beautiful children due to Severe mental issues she no longer lives in our state and has cut all ties.DCS led her to belive that once she done signed over her right the babies would be with their family. We have faught screamed begged and anything else we could possibly due I hired a lawyer five grand down the drain.You know all I want is my babies home.I've done everything they have even asked me to do.Now their saying I can't see my grandchildren cause I'M on a prescription for paipain.I have a very rare blood disease it causes cellulitis a form of blood poisoning to stay dormant in my tissues and nervous system it also causes a ,blood clotting disorder.even with the two blood thinners I'm on I still Continue to develop them them also.DCS knows about my illness and still they refuse to let me see my grandchildren. I Love and miss them so much Please can anyone help Us my grandchildren and I they should be worrying about what toy there going to play with but instead there worrying about if there ever coming home again.THANK YOU DCS FOR ALL YOU'VE DONE. ( And if anyone at all has any ideals or knows who can help. Please contact (765)960~5096.only serious callers

  4. He must be a Rethuglican, for if from the other side of the aisle such acts would be merely personal and thus not something that attaches to his professional life. AND ... gotta love this ... oh, and on top of talking dirty on the phone, he also, as an aside, guess we should mention, might be important, not sure, but .... "In addition to these allegations, Keaton was accused of failing to file an appeal after he collected advance payment from a client seeking to challenge a ruling that the client repay benefits because of unreported income." rimshot

  5. I am not a fan of some of the 8.4 discipline we have seen for private conduct-- but this was so egregious and abusive and had so many points of bad conduct relates to the law and the lawyer's status as a lawyer that it is clearly a proper and just disbarment. A truly despicable account of bad acts showing unfit character to practice law. I applaud the outcome.

ADVERTISEMENT