That means the law in Michigan has not yet changed and, depending on the outcome on appeal, may not change as contemplated by the district court opinion. Reports that Wine.com will begin shipping in reliance on the original judgment appear premature.

Unfortunately, I expect the governor, along with the entire state legislature, will respond to the decision by crafting a scheme that either eliminates all shipments (from instate retailers or out), or makes the application for licenses and payment of taxes so burdensome as to be unprofitable. Sad that in a state where people are fleeing in droves, jobs are disappearing, entire industries are collapsing and massive deficits exist, that preventing citizens from buying wine is such a priority for the Governor.

I live in Michigan. Since Granholm 1, I have had little problem getting wine from most small vineyards. The distributors really care about blocking direct shipments to Spartan Foods, Costco, Sam’s Club, etc.

When this eventually shakes out, we’ll have retailers licensed in each state they ship to, as are wineries. There will always be a few scofflaws around — but there’s no reason for collective punishment against consumers and legitimate retailers nationwide because of a small number of bad actors.

What is the avenue for the State of Michigan to go after California retailers that fail to pay their Michigan taxes? Will California assist in revoking the license of tax evaders in other states? Since retailers have no federal license, the mechanism under the original Granholm decision of enforcing tax collection from wineries in other states by having the feds pull a winery license is not available in the case of retailers.