ILNews

Liquor store chain seeks to impose strict regulations on convenience stores selling alcohol

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A chain of 19 liquor stores in Indianapolis wants the drug, grocery and convenience stores that sell alcohol to be subject to the same strict regulations that govern package liquor stores.

21st Amendment, Inc., has filed a motion to intervene and file cross-claim in the lawsuit brought by Indiana convenience stores to change state law that currently allows only liquor stores to sell beer cold.

The Indianapolis chain argued while convenience stores claim the prohibition on selling cold beer is “irrational and discriminatory,” these retailers ignore the other restrictions placed solely on package liquor stores.

Package stores are limited by state statute on where they can be located, what items they can sell, and whom they can allow in their stores, 21st Amendment stated in its court motion. Also, package liquor store permits can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and can only be purchased through a private sale or a state-run auction.

“If Plaintiffs desire to be ‘equal’ to package liquor stores under the law, they must also be willing to accept the other restrictions that the General Assembly has promulgated as necessary conditions for the sale of chilled beer,” 21st Amendment stated.

In May, a group of retailers filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, charging the state’s practice of regulating beer by temperature violates their constitutional rights.

The convenience stores turned to the courts after several unsuccessful attempts to get the Indiana General Assembly to change the law.  

21st Amendment filed its motion July 19 in the case, Indiana Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Store Association et al v. Huskey et al, 1:13-cv-0784-RLY-MJD.

Like the convenience stores, the Indianapolis chain made constitutional arguments in its cross-claim against Alex Huskey, chairman of the Indiana Alcohol and Tobacco Commission.

Again, 21st Amendment pointed to the restrictions placed on package liquor stores compared to those placed on other retailers. The chain asserted the regulations give drug, grocery and convenience stores an “arbitrary and unfair advantage” because they can sell all the same alcoholic beverages as liquor stores with the exception of cold beer.

Because of the tighter regulations, package liquor stores argue that they have to pay more to comply while losing revenue by not being able to sell things such as cold water and grocery items. 21st Amendment estimated the regulations cost its operations millions of dollars each year.

Consequently, the chain claimed the state’s failure to apply the more restrictive regulations on grocery, drug and convenience stores violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The Indianapolis retailer also charged ATC’s decision to permit retailers other than package liquor stores to sell beer, wine and liquor without enforcing the stricter regulations is “irrational, discriminatory, arbitrary, capricious, and harmful to the public health.” The regulations treat liquor stores differently and violate Article I, Section 23 of the Indiana Constitution.  

21st Amendment concluded by telling the court that the regulations currently applied to package liquor stores must be enforced against all retailers selling alcohol and the less restrictive regulations be eliminated.
 

 

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. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT