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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT