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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Can I get this form on line,if not where can I obtain one. I am eligible.

  2. What a fine example of the best of the Hoosier tradition! How sad that the AP has to include partisan snark in the obit for this great American patriot and adventurer.

  3. Why are all these lawyers yakking to the media about pending matters? Trial by media? What the devil happened to not making extrajudicial statements? The system is falling apart.

  4. It is a sad story indeed as this couple has been only in survival mode, NOT found guilty with Ponzi, shaken down for 5 years and pursued by prosecution that has been ignited by a civil suit with very deep pockets wrenched in their bitterness...It has been said that many of us are breaking an average of 300 federal laws a day without even knowing it. Structuring laws, & civilForfeiture laws are among the scariest that need to be restructured or repealed . These laws were initially created for drug Lords and laundering money and now reach over that line. Here you have a couple that took out their own money, not drug money, not laundering. Yes...Many upset that they lost money...but how much did they make before it all fell apart? No one ask that question? A civil suit against Williams was awarded because he has no more money to fight...they pushed for a break in order...they took all his belongings...even underwear, shoes and clothes? who does that? What allows that? Maybe if you had the picture of him purchasing a jacket at the Goodwill just to go to court the next day...his enemy may be satisfied? But not likely...bitterness is a master. For happy ending lovers, you will be happy to know they have a faith that has changed their world and a solid love that many of us can only dream about. They will spend their time in federal jail for taking their money from their account, but at the end of the day they have loyal friends, a true love and a hope of a new life in time...and none of that can be bought or taken That is the real story.

  5. Could be his email did something especially heinous, really over the top like questioning Ind S.Ct. officials or accusing JLAP of being the political correctness police.

ADVERTISEMENT