• sildenafil vente acheter zithromax online ketoconazole pharmacie commande omeprazole antabuse générique acheter ketoconazole online wellbutrin generique achat en ligne acheter dostinex en ligne finasteride mg generique finpecia prix phenergan pharmacie metformin mg zyprexa prix strattera générique nizoral sans recette
  • viagra france prix cialis sérieux viagra vente en pharmacie livraison viagra enh viagra transport rapide viagra professionnel viapharmacy acheter kamagra gel vente cialis belgique acheter viagra sans ordonnance pharmacie express vente de viagra achat tadalafil sildenafil achat en ligne achat cialis 20mg générique viagra soft
  • Granholm v. Heald

    On May 16th, 2005, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a landmark decision in the case of Granholm, Governor of Michigan, Et Al, v. Heald Et. Al.. We will discuss this case at length in this blog, but let’s start with the basics.

    You can see the official Supreme Court decision here, but the key passage from Justice Kennedy’s opinion follows:

    These consolidated cases present challenges to state laws regulating the sale of wine from out-of-state wineries to consumers in Michigan and New York. The details and mechanics of the two regulatory schemes differ, but the object and effect of the laws are the same: to allow in-state wineries to sell wine directly to consumers in that State but to prohibit out-of-state wineries from doing so, or, at the least, to make direct sales impractical from an economic standpoint. It is evident that the object and design of the Michigan and New York statutes is to grant in-state wineries a competitive advantage over wineries located beyond the States� borders. We hold that the laws in both States discriminate against interstate commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause, Art. I, �8, cl. 3, and that the discrimination is neither authorized nor permitted by the Twenty-first Amendment. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which invalidated the Michigan laws; and we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which upheld the New York laws.

    Basically, because the states of New York and Michigan were allowing in-state wineries to ship directly to consumers while prohibiting out-of-state wineries from shipping directly to consumers in their state, the states were in violation of the Commerce Clause.

    As a result, states must treat in-state and out-of-state wineries evenhandedly. This effectively means that states have two options – allow both in-state wineries and out-of-state wineries to ship directly to consumers in their state or prohibit direct shipments altogether.

    Trackbacks/Pingbacks

    1. Wine Direct Shipping Compliance » Blog Archive » Costco wins key ruling in Washington - [...] The second is more significant for wine shipping. Citing the Commerce Clause as does the Granholm decision, Judge Marsha …
    2. Wine Direct Shipping Compliance » Blog Archive » Kansas revisits wine shipping laws - [...] A pending bill in the Kansas Legislature would prohibit the direct shipment of wine to consumers altogether. Currently, Kansas …
    3. Wine Direct Shipping Compliance » Blog Archive » Colorado bill passes House Finance Committee - [...] In their effort to become compliant with the Granholm decision, Colorado introduced a limited direct bill that would ease …
    4. Wine Direct Shipping Compliance » Blog Archive » Idaho removes reciprocity - [...] Idaho removes reciprocity [...]
    5. Wine Direct Shipping Compliance » Blog Archive » WSWA To Release New Underage “Research” - [...] Highlights from the study and the findings will be presented during NBC Nightly News this evening at 7pm EST. …
    6. Idaho removes reciprocity - ShipCompliant - [...] Granholm case effectively established that states must treat in-state and out-of-state wineries [...]
    7. DIRECT Conference Gives Wineries Tools to Succeed in Direct Shipping | ShipCompliant: Wine Shipping Blog - [...] its first Direct Shipping Seminar & Users Conference in 2006, one year after the groundbreaking Granholm v. Heald Supreme …

    Submit a Comment

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>