ILNews

Cold beer sales hearing begins Thursday

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A federal judge in Indianapolis Thursday will consider a group of convenience and grocery stores’ challenges to the state law prohibiting those businesses from selling cold beer.

Chief Judge Richard L. Young in the Southern District of Indiana set aside two days this week to consider the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction. The Indiana Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Store Association and its members filed its lawsuit last year, claiming the ban stopping convenience stores, pharmacies and groceries from selling cold beer is discriminatory. The plaintiffs say the state’s current practice of regulating beer sales by temperature is arbitrary.

For nearly the last five years, the Indiana Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Store Association has lobbied the Legislature unsuccessfully to be able to sell cold beer.

The group asserts the state’s limitations on sales of cold beer violate the equal protection clause and the equal privileges clause of the U.S. Constitution. The lawsuit charges Indiana’s practices violate the equal protection clause and Article 1, Section 1 of the Indiana Constitution.

The defendants, in their answer to the complaint, countered they have not violated the plaintiffs’ rights secured under the Constitution or any state or federal law. They also argue the plaintiffs’ claims are barred by sovereign immunity and the 11th Amendment.  

21st Amendment Inc., a chain of liquor stores in Indianapolis, filed motions to intervene in the lawsuit, which Young denied. 21st Amendment said the plaintiffs are ignoring the other restrictions placed solely on package liquor stores – the only locations cold beer may be sold – such as where the stores can be located and what items they can sell.

The case is Indiana Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Store Association, Thornton’s Inc., Ricker Oil Company Inc., Freedom Oil, LLC, Steve E. Noe v. Alex Huskey, in his official capacity as Chairman of the Indiana Alcohol and Tobacco Commission, 1:13-CV-784.
 

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. 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.

  2. 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

  3. She must be a great lawyer

  4. Ind. Courts - "Illinois ranks 49th for how court system serves disadvantaged" What about Indiana? A story today from Dave Collins of the AP, here published in the Benton Illinois Evening News, begins: Illinois' court system had the third-worst score in the nation among state judiciaries in serving poor, disabled and other disadvantaged members of the public, according to new rankings. Illinois' "Justice Index" score of 34.5 out of 100, determined by the nonprofit National Center for Access to Justice, is based on how states serve people with disabilities and limited English proficiency, how much free legal help is available and how states help increasing numbers of people representing themselves in court, among other issues. Connecticut led all states with a score of 73.4 and was followed by Hawaii, Minnesota, New York and Delaware, respectively. Local courts in Washington, D.C., had the highest overall score at 80.9. At the bottom was Oklahoma at 23.7, followed by Kentucky, Illinois, South Dakota and Indiana. ILB: That puts Indiana at 46th worse. More from the story: Connecticut, Hawaii, Minnesota, Colorado, Tennessee and Maine had perfect 100 scores in serving people with disabilities, while Indiana, Georgia, Wyoming, Missouri and Idaho had the lowest scores. Those rankings were based on issues such as whether interpretation services are offered free to the deaf and hearing-impaired and whether there are laws or rules allowing service animals in courthouses. The index also reviewed how many civil legal aid lawyers were available to provide free legal help. Washington, D.C., had nearly nine civil legal aid lawyers per 10,000 people in poverty, the highest rate in the country. Texas had the lowest rate, 0.43 legal aid lawyers per 10,000 people in poverty. http://indianalawblog.com/archives/2014/11/ind_courts_illi_1.html

  5. A very thorough opinion by the federal court. The Rooker-Feldman analysis, in particular, helps clear up muddy water as to the entanglement issue. Looks like the Seventh Circuit is willing to let its district courts cruise much closer to the Indiana Supreme Court's shorelines than most thought likely, at least when the ADA on the docket. Some could argue that this case and Praekel, taken together, paint a rather unflattering picture of how the lower courts are being advised as to their duties under the ADA. A read of the DOJ amicus in Praekel seems to demonstrate a less-than-congenial view toward the higher echelons in the bureaucracy.

ADVERTISEMENT