ILNews

Cold beer lawsuit fails in federal court

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Hoosiers will still have to go to their local liquor store to buy a cold one.

A challenge to state law prohibiting convenience, grocery and drug stores from selling cold beer failed Monday when the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and granted the state’s motion for summary judgment.

Convenience stores filed a lawsuit in 2013, arguing Indiana’s restrictions on who could sell beer cold violated their constitutional rights to due process and equal protection. In Indiana Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Store Association et al. v. Alex Huskey, Chairman of the Indiana Alcohol and Tobacco Commission, 1:13-CV-000784, the retailers charged that regulating the sale of beer based on temperature is unfair and does not prevent minors from illegally purchasing alcoholic beverages.

However, Chief Judge Richard Young rejected the IPCA’s arguments.

He dismissed the plaintiff’s contention that the state statute violated the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution because it was vague and not clear as to what conduct was being prohibited. Young pointed to the low number of citations from the Indiana State Excise Police as demonstrating the stores understand they cannot place beer in their coolers.

In disallowing the equal protection claims, Young found the state has a legitimate interest in limiting the sale of alcohol.

 “Restricting the sale of cold beer to certain types of businesses and restricting the sale of cold beer only to businesses that have more restrictions placed on them is a classic example of legislative line-drawing,” Young wrote in his June 16 order. “Indiana’s legislative classifications, which serve to limit the outlets for immediately consumable cold beer, is rationally related to the legitimate goals of Indiana’s alcoholic beverage laws; opening this market to others without restriction is not.”

Both sides presented their case to the judge Feb. 20 and 21.

After the ruling, Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller said the proper venue for settling this issue was the Statehouse.

“The statute we successfully defended reflects the current decision of the people’s elected representatives in the Legislature,” Zoeller said. “The subject has been debated for many years but the appropriate forum for those who disagree with the state law to advocate for policy changes is in the state Legislature not the courts.”

The Indiana Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Store Association vowed to continue pushing against the state’s law but did not specify whether it would appeal Young’s order or mount another effort to get the Legislature to change the law.  

“Our members and Hoosiers are disappointed that the court did not rule to end an irrational, discriminatory and outdated law,” said Scot Imus, IPCA executive director. “There is wide support to modernize Indiana’s alcohol laws, and we will continue to fight for fairness in the marketplace.”



 


 

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. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  2. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  3. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  4. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  5. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

ADVERTISEMENT