ILNews

State responds to complaint over cold beer sales

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Office of the Indiana Attorney General has filed an answer to a lawsuit challenging the state’s laws and regulations that keep gas stations and grocery stores from selling cold beer.

In a complaint filed in May, the Indiana Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Store Association, along with a handful of convenience stores and a consumer, charged the state’s regulations that prevent them from selling refrigerated beer violate their rights guaranteed by the U.S. and Indiana constitutions.

The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch is presiding over the case.

The Indiana Alcohol and Tobacco Commission; Alex Huskey, chairman of the Indiana Alcohol and Tobacco Commission; and the state of Indiana were all named as defendants.

As part of their answer, the defendants denied the allegations and countered that they have not violated the plaintiffs’ rights secured under the Constitution or laws of the United States and the state of Indiana. Moreover, they asserted the plaintiffs’ claims under state and federal law are barred by sovereign immunity and the 11th amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The defendants conclude by asking the court to enter a judgment in their favor.

Currently, Indiana statute only allows package liquor stores to sell cold beer. Convenience store owners have tried several times to convince the Indiana General Assembly to rewrite state law, but the Legislature has resisted.

Liquor stores maintain their business will be devastated and minors will have easier access to alcohol if convenience stores are allowed to sell cold beer.





 
 

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. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. 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.

  5. 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

ADVERTISEMENT