ILNews

21st Amendment again shut out of federal cold-beer suit

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A federal judge Thursday affirmed a ruling that the Indianapolis-based 21st Amendment package liquor store chain is not entitled to intervene in a federal lawsuit challenging Indiana’s law prohibiting convenience and grocery stores from selling cold beer.

Meanwhile, the challenge to Indiana’s Prohibition-era alcoholic beverage laws could come to a head later this month.

Chief Judge Richard Young of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana signed an order affirming a magistrate’s earlier ruling that barred 21st Amendment’s participation in the case. Convenience and grocery store owners claim state laws that bar them from selling cold beer are unconstitutional. They claim violations of the Commerce Clause, the Equal Protection Clause and Indiana’s Equal Privileges Clause.

But 21st Amendment challenged the order because it claims its liquor licenses cost about $144,000 to $475,000, compared to $6,000 for retailers who cannot sell cold beer. On that basis, 21st Amendment argued it had an interest to protect and represent, and that federal court rules permit its participation in litigation that it said could devalue its licenses.

Young declined 21st Amendment’s request to overturn the magistrate’s order. “21st Amendment cannot identify a conflict that suggests the state will not vigorously defend its alcoholic beverage laws. The ultimate goal of this litigation, from the viewpoint of both the state and 21st Amendment, is to uphold the constitutionality of the present statutory scheme.

“The fact that the state’s motivation in defending this action is to uphold the law, while 21st Amendment’s motivation is to protect its business investment, is not a conflict sufficient to rebut the presumption of the state’s adequacy” in defending the suit, Young wrote.

“The magistrate judge found that 21st Amendment’s plans to file a cross-claim against the State that presupposes the court first rules against the state on plaintiffs’ claims would unnecessarily complicate the litigation and threaten to delay its resolution, to the prejudice of the existing parties. The court agrees,” Young wrote.

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.

Last month Young set a preliminary injunction hearing for 9 a.m. Feb. 20 in Room 349 of the Birch Bayh Federal Courthouse in Indianapolis. Two days have been set aside for the hearing.

 

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. Based on several recent Indy Star articles, I would agree that being a case worker would be really hard. You would see the worst of humanity on a daily basis; and when things go wrong guess who gets blamed??!! Not biological parent!! Best of luck to those who entered that line of work.

  2. I was looking through some of your blog posts on this internet site and I conceive this web site is rattling informative ! Keep on posting . dfkcfdkdgbekdffe

  3. Don't believe me, listen to Pacino: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6bC9w9cH-M

  4. Law school is social control the goal to produce a social product. As such it began after the Revolution and has nearly ruined us to this day: "“Scarcely any political question arises in the United States which is not resolved, sooner or later, into a judicial question. Hence all parties are obliged to borrow, in their daily controversies, the ideas, and even the language, peculiar to judicial proceedings. As most public men [i.e., politicians] are, or have been, legal practitioners, they introduce the customs and technicalities of their profession into the management of public affairs. The jury extends this habitude to all classes. The language of the law thus becomes, in some measure, a vulgar tongue; the spirit of the law, which is produced in the schools and courts of justice, gradually penetrates beyond their walls into the bosom of society, where it descends to the lowest classes, so that at last the whole people contract the habits and the tastes of the judicial magistrate.” ? Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

  5. Attorney? Really? Or is it former attorney? Status with the Ind St Ct? Status with federal court, with SCOTUS? This is a legal newspaper, or should I look elsewhere?

ADVERTISEMENT