ILNews

Judge: Wine shipping law unconstitutional

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana's law prohibiting out-of-state wineries from shipping to Hoosier customers without face-to-face contact is unconstitutional, a federal judge in Indianapolis has ruled.

U.S. District Judge John D. Tinder issued a 71-page decision http://www.insd.uscourts.gov/News/Baude.pdf, and a separate four-page judgment http://www.insd.uscourts.gov/News/BaudeJudgment.pdf and injunction late Wednesday in Patrick L. Baude et al. v. David L. Heath and Wine and Sprits Wholesalers of Indiana, No. 1:05-cv-0735-JDT-TAB.

At issue in this case was whether state statute involving direct wine shipment violated the out-of-state wineries rights by barring them from newly created direct wine seller permits. The law went into effect in March 2006, and this federal suit came the following month.

Plaintiffs include a major Michigan winery, Chateau Grand Traverse, and five consumers. They challenged the law, part of which mandated they have at least one face-to-face transaction to allow the winery to verify the customer's age. The winery contended the rules discriminated against out-of-state wineries by preventing them from competing in the direct-sale market, and the consumers argued they were barred from obtaining many wines because of the impracticality of traveling outside the state or to complete the in-person requirement.

Defendant Heath, commissioner of the Indiana Alcohol and Tobacco Commission, contended the laws do not discriminate and are needed to prevent the sale of alcohol to minors - the state's interest in protecting its youth outweighs any incidental burdens on interstate commerce.

Judge Tinder disagreed, noting that the requirement creates 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.

This is not the first time wine connoisseurs have challenged Indiana's authority to regulate direct shipments of wine into the state. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago dealt a blow to wine lovers in 2000 with a ruling that the state could prohibit direct shipments, but since that case of Bridenbaugh v. Freeman-Wilson, 227 F.3d 848, 854 (7th Cir. 2000), the U.S. Supreme Court has weighed in to change the legal landscape.

In 2005, the court ruled in the Michigan case of Granholm v. Heald, 544 W.S. 460, 493 (2005) that states could not discriminate against out-of-state-wineries by prohibiting them from shipping directly to consumers if the state laws allowed in-state wineries to do so. The court ruled the repealed 21st Amendment on Prohibition did not override the requirements of the Commerce Clause in regulating interstate commerce of goods.

Relying on that high court ruling, Judge Tinder based his determination and granted the injunction enjoining the Alcohol and Tobacco Commission from enforcing the rule.

"This court's decision is likely to be of immediate interest only to those out-of-state wineries with an existing base of Indiana customers or wine connoisseurs who may have the means to persuade out-of-state firms to undertake the effort," he wrote. "Indiana wineries will not need to change any of their current business practices. Indeed, there is little likelihood that much will change before the General Assembly meets again."
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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT