Archive for January 30th, 2008
Six Veils Out of Seven: Retailer Shipments Under Granholm
January 30th, 2008
On January 14, 2008, a district court in Texas rendered a mostly pro-trade decision in Siesta Village Market, LLC v. Perry that clarified much, but danced around the hottest issue, leaving the final veil in place.
The case upholds the basic Specialty Wine Retailers contention that a state that allows its retailers to deliver to consumers must permit direct shipment by out-of-state retailers. It also has some important things to say about the meaning of Granholm’s less pellucid passages. In particular, it attempts to deal with the most significant internal tension of the Granholm majority opinion, viz., the difficulty of squaring the holding of the opinion, that states cannot require out-of-state wineries to become residents as a condition to reaching local markets, with a dictum-within-a-dictum quoted from a 1990 Supreme Court case, North Dakota v. United States, to the effect that the 21st Amendment empowers states “to require that all liquor sold for use in the State be purchased from a licensed in-state wholesaler.” (For an explanation of the difference between holdings and dicta, see the blog post, Discrimination Against Out-of-State Retailers After Granholm).
The Siesta Village decision and its implications merit further discussion, in particular on the following points:
1. Texas had a “citizenship” requirement of at least a year’s residence in the state for most licenses. It had already been declared unconstitutional when applied to newly arriving wholesalers with physical premises within the state. Siesta Village goes farther by analyzing the statute as a location requirement and holding it unconstitutional on Commerce Clause grounds, to the extent it prevented issuance of the requisite retailing licenses to out-of-state retailers.
2. The Siesta Village judge takes Granholm as a location parity case, and his opinion is explicit that physical presence requirements “plainly discriminate against interstate commerce.” However, like every analyst of Granholm, he had to deal with a key question posed by the quotation from North Dakota, noted above: If a state has the right to require all wine to “be purchased from a licensed in-state wholesaler,” how does one give effect to the Commerce Clause policy against location discrimination? One way of resolving the issue is to require the state to accept methods of consummating the purchase requirement that do not substantially burden interstate commerce relative to local, such as running the sale through the local middle tier without requiring the wine to take an economically disadvantageous logistical path when sold by an out-of-state retailer. Another is to declare that the quotation is dicta and therefore not binding in applying the Granholm holding to a different chain of distribution where its effect on commerce is more problematic –rather too bold a departure to expect in a district court opinion. In the event, the judge simply let the contradiction lie, holding that the retailers have to comply with Texas laws requiring a state retail license and purchase from a Texas-licensed wholesaler, a deferral that has been described as a ticket to the next round of litigation. Meanwhile, the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission has informally commented that it is not their problem.
3. Experts disagree on the extent to which Granholm was a “weak record case” that could have gone the other way had the states made a better showing of regulatory problems, for example in tax collection and averting deliveries to underage recipients. Siesta Village takes the opposite view, and granted summary judgment, which means the court decided Texas failed to show substantial likelihood that, if it were afforded a full hearing, it would present evidence on which a judgment in its favor could be based. To win in a direct discrimination case a state would have to show there is no reasonable alternative to discrimination for achieving legitimate regulatory objectives. The court reads Granholm to say that the availability of licensing and modern communications makes such an argument inherently implausible, and comes close to saying a state can never prevail on the proposition that interstate delivery is more likely to cause underage drinking than intrastate delivery.
4. Another point of controversy among lawyers is whether the Commerce Clause is indifferent to whether a court cures discrimination by leveling up or down. Siesta Village takes the side of those who argue that it makes no sense to level down in enforcing a constitutional provision intended to encourage interstate trade, at least in the absence of a clear legislative statement requiring termination of in-state privileges in case of invalidity of interstate prohibition. In constitutional law terms, the Siesta Village judge may have discovered a penumbra to the Commerce Clause that would prevent courts from taking such simplistic approaches as counting the number of lines of statutory text that would have to be rewritten and picking the smaller revision.
5. Although Siesta Village rejected the wholesalers’ strange argument that the discrimination arose not from Texas’s intent, but from the happenstance of the plaintiffs’ locations, it indulged in dicta indicating states can adopt on-site-only laws, in which case the “accident of geography,” and not state discrimination, would be responsible for excluding remote sellers. It appeared to accept the reasoning that because there is no “direct shipment market” in those states, the remote sellers are not excluded from anything by the prohibition, which is arguably a flawed argument under the Commerce Clause, whose policy extends to disproportionate burden as well as overt discrimination.
Appeals seem likely. Meanwhile, the parties in Knightsbridge Wine Shoppe, LTD v. Jolly, who agreed to extend Granholm, at least temporarily, to non-producing retailers selling to California consumers, will presumably take up their cudgels on application of the Siesta Village analysis, versus that of the New York case, Arnold’s Wines, Inc. v. Boyle on September 9, 2007. In Arnold’s Wines, the New York federal district court dismissed a retailer suit without an evidentiary hearing, on the grounds that the state had a 21st Amendment right to require all sales to go through an in-state wholesaler, a proposition suggested by the vexing dictum in the Granholm opinion.
The Arnold’s Wines decision seems to miss Granholm’s point that a state may have the right to require all wine to go through three tiers, but does not have the right to apply its rule with location discrimination unless it provides evidence that its discrimination against interstate sellers is required by a legitimate state objective that cannot be achieved through nondiscriminatory means. The Siesta Village judge expressly declined to follow Arnold’s Wines, which it plausibly characterized as putting the 21st Amendment above the Commerce Clause, precisely what Granholm forbids.
Six Veils Out of Seven: Retailer Shipments Under Granholm
January 30th, 2008
On January 14, 2008, a district court in Texas rendered a mostly pro-trade decision in Siesta Village Market, LLC v. Perry that clarified much, but danced around the hottest issue, leaving the final veil in place.
The case upholds the basic Specialty Wine Retailers contention that a state that allows its retailers to deliver to consumers must permit direct shipment by out-of-state retailers. It also has some important things to say about the meaning of Granholm’s less pellucid passages. In particular, it attempts to deal with the most significant internal tension of the Granholm majority opinion, viz., the difficulty of squaring the holding of the opinion, that states cannot require out-of-state wineries to become residents as a condition to reaching local markets, with a dictum-within-a-dictum quoted from a 1990 Supreme Court case, North Dakota v. United States, to the effect that the 21st Amendment empowers states “to require that all liquor sold for use in the State be purchased from a licensed in-state wholesaler.” (For an explanation of the difference between holdings and dicta, see the blog post, Discrimination Against Out-of-State Retailers After Granholm).
The Siesta Village decision and its implications merit further discussion, in particular on the following points:
1. Texas had a “citizenship” requirement of at least a year’s residence in the state for most licenses. It had already been declared unconstitutional when applied to newly arriving wholesalers with physical premises within the state. Siesta Village goes farther by analyzing the statute as a location requirement and holding it unconstitutional on Commerce Clause grounds, to the extent it prevented issuance of the requisite retailing licenses to out-of-state retailers.
2. The Siesta Village judge takes Granholm as a location parity case, and his opinion is explicit that physical presence requirements “plainly discriminate against interstate commerce.” However, like every analyst of Granholm, he had to deal with a key question posed by the quotation from North Dakota, noted above: If a state has the right to require all wine to “be purchased from a licensed in-state wholesaler,” how does one give effect to the Commerce Clause policy against location discrimination? One way of resolving the issue is to require the state to accept methods of consummating the purchase requirement that do not substantially burden interstate commerce relative to local, such as running the sale through the local middle tier without requiring the wine to take an economically disadvantageous logistical path when sold by an out-of-state retailer. Another is to declare that the quotation is dicta and therefore not binding in applying the Granholm holding to a different chain of distribution where its effect on commerce is more problematic –rather too bold a departure to expect in a district court opinion. In the event, the judge simply let the contradiction lie, holding that the retailers have to comply with Texas laws requiring a state retail license and purchase from a Texas-licensed wholesaler, a deferral that has been described as a ticket to the next round of litigation. Meanwhile, the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission has informally commented that it is not their problem.
3. Experts disagree on the extent to which Granholm was a “weak record case” that could have gone the other way had the states made a better showing of regulatory problems, for example in tax collection and averting deliveries to underage recipients. Siesta Village takes the opposite view, and granted summary judgment, which means the court decided Texas failed to show substantial likelihood that, if it were afforded a full hearing, it would present evidence on which a judgment in its favor could be based. To win in a direct discrimination case a state would have to show there is no reasonable alternative to discrimination for achieving legitimate regulatory objectives. The court reads Granholm to say that the availability of licensing and modern communications makes such an argument inherently implausible, and comes close to saying a state can never prevail on the proposition that interstate delivery is more likely to cause underage drinking than intrastate delivery.
4. Another point of controversy among lawyers is whether the Commerce Clause is indifferent to whether a court cures discrimination by leveling up or down. Siesta Village takes the side of those who argue that it makes no sense to level down in enforcing a constitutional provision intended to encourage interstate trade, at least in the absence of a clear legislative statement requiring termination of in-state privileges in case of invalidity of interstate prohibition. In constitutional law terms, the Siesta Village judge may have discovered a penumbra to the Commerce Clause that would prevent courts from taking such simplistic approaches as counting the number of lines of statutory text that would have to be rewritten and picking the smaller revision.
5. Although Siesta Village rejected the wholesalers’ strange argument that the discrimination arose not from Texas’s intent, but from the happenstance of the plaintiffs’ locations, it indulged in dicta indicating states can adopt on-site-only laws, in which case the “accident of geography,” and not state discrimination, would be responsible for excluding remote sellers. It appeared to accept the reasoning that because there is no “direct shipment market” in those states, the remote sellers are not excluded from anything by the prohibition, which is arguably a flawed argument under the Commerce Clause, whose policy extends to disproportionate burden as well as overt discrimination.
Appeals seem likely. Meanwhile, the parties in Knightsbridge Wine Shoppe, LTD v. Jolly, who agreed to extend Granholm, at least temporarily, to non-producing retailers selling to California consumers, will presumably take up their cudgels on application of the Siesta Village analysis, versus that of the New York case, Arnold’s Wines, Inc. v. Boyle on September 9, 2007. In Arnold’s Wines, the New York federal district court dismissed a retailer suit without an evidentiary hearing, on the grounds that the state had a 21st Amendment right to require all sales to go through an in-state wholesaler, a proposition suggested by the vexing dictum in the Granholm opinion.
The Arnold’s Wines decision seems to miss Granholm’s point that a state may have the right to require all wine to go through three tiers, but does not have the right to apply its rule with location discrimination unless it provides evidence that its discrimination against interstate sellers is required by a legitimate state objective that cannot be achieved through nondiscriminatory means. The Siesta Village judge expressly declined to follow Arnold’s Wines, which it plausibly characterized as putting the 21st Amendment above the Commerce Clause, precisely what Granholm forbids.
Dulling the Cutting Edge
January 30th, 2008
Yesterday’s decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected almost everything about the trial court’s decision in Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Hoen that was innovative under federal antitrust law, turning the case into an expression of conservative deference to state law.
Appellate judges did not even throw Costco the scrap of a favorable word about the Granholm portion of the judgment, on which the state had already acquiesced by changing its statutory scheme to eliminate discrimination against out-of-state manufacturers. A small mitigating factor for trade in wine is that the Ninth Circuit did not attempt to expand the effect of the 21st Amendment , leaving in place both the district judge’s definition of the supposed Section 2 defense and her finding that it had not been proved.
The immediate effect of the decision, once a mandate is issued to the district court, will be threefold: (1) Washington will have to stop requiring suppliers to post prices and hold them unchanged for 30 days without actively supervising them for reasonableness, a practice the court agreed constitutes a per se violation of federal antitrust law. (2) The state may nevertheless enforce other restraints that have operated as part of the price posting scheme, i.e., the bans on quantity discounts and credit, the minimum 10% markup and the requirement that suppliers charge all retailers in the state the same price, irrespective of the point of delivery. (3) The state may also continue the two challenged restraints of trade operating only indirectly on price, the bans on central warehousing and on sales between retailers. It seems likely the mandate will take effect in due course, as there is no reason to expect the Court of Appeals to entertain a request for rehearing, and the odds are against the Supreme Court’s accepting the case for review, should a party attempt to appeal.
Practical compliance with the opinion will raise interesting administrative issues on which the Court of Appeals offered no guidance. The first unanswered question is, assuming the state wishes to retain the allowed price restraints, how it could operate a price posting system without the illegal “hold” requirement? Would some hold period significantly shorter than 30 days be legal? If not, how could one administer an instantly revisable posting? If there is can be no mandated time period for holding a price, can a uniform price rule apply to any transactions that are not exactly contemporaneous? Assuming posting is out for practical reasons, liquor price law enforcement would be mostly on the same footing as enforcement of trade laws generally, requiring investigation and often relying on competitor’s complaints, a scenario that invites cost-benefit analysis of interfering in a marketplace that is already regulated under general antitrust and fair competition laws.
All those uncertainties arise at a time when the Washington State Liquor Control Board is considering freer trade policies and some wholesalers are becoming less ardent in their support of post-and-hold price restraints. The state legislature is in a short session currently, with relatively little opportunity for profound and controversial changes in a major regulatory scheme, but the anomalies created by the Costco case suggest an attempt at a legislative fix, possibly including consideration of jettisoning the posting-related laws the Court of Appeals said the state could keep.
A setback for Costco
January 30th, 2008
A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled yesterday in the case of Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Hoen. The panel largely reversed the April, 2006 decision that declared much of Washington’s three-tier system to be unconstitutional.
Although the court did agree with Costco that the “post and hold” requirement that forces suppliers to post their prices and hold them unchanged for a period of time is unconstitutional, it disagreed with Costco on two main points. The first upheld the liquor board’s right to ban central warehousing, meaning that distributors must deliver product to each retail store instead of to a central warehouse owned by the retailer. This takes away a key advantage that Costco has in efficient distribution. The court also upheld the liquor board’s right to ban high-volume discounts to different retailers.
Both sides now have the option of appealing the court’s decision within two weeks. They could also appeal to the United States Supreme Court within three months. Costco has expressed disappointment in the decision, but it is not clear whether either side will appeal the ruling.
