Untangling the complex world of wine direct shipping and compliance
strattera sans recette pas cher ranitidine pas cher minocycline minocycline mg nolvadex sans recette antabuse sans ordonnance diamox sans recette tadalafil mg acheter dutasteride online finasteride 1mg
cheapviagra 
propecia uk 
buy levitra paypal 
cialis drug 
priligy online 
cialis discount 
canadian pharmacy propecia 
cheap champix 
priligy direct meds 
buy propecia online australia 

Siesta's Over

January 27th, 2010
By R. Corbin Houchins Beverage Industry Counsel

On January 26th, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ended the puzzling status of interstate retailing in Texas created by the lower court’s decision in Siesta Village Market. The district court had ruled that out-of-state retailers had a Commerce Clause right to sell wine to Texas consumers, but only wine that had been purchased from a Texas-licensed wholesaler.

The decision is another example of uncertainties resulting from the principal unresolved Granholm question: How does one reconcile the location-neutrality principle with the infamous North Dakota dictum to the effect that states may discriminate against out-of-state wholesalers? The Fifth Circuit’s answer, like that of the Second Circuit, is that Granholm extended Commerce Clause protection to wineries, but not to wholesalers or retailers, because national markets in the lower tiers would make it impossible for a state to protect the “traditional three-tier system.” As the Court of Appeals judge said about setting aside fundamental economic policy embodied in the dormant Commerce Clause to follow a judicial aside that was not part of the Granholm holding, “That language may be dicta. If so, it is compelling dicta.”

Post-Granholm litigation shows clearly enough that judges, though not bound to follow dicta, will elevate it to persuasive precedent when it coincides with their value systems. The values question is whether states’ asserted 21st Amendment right to maintain a privileged middle tier trumps the Commerce Clause policy against differential treatment of in-state and out-of-state economic interests. All one can say at this point is, “to be continued.”

by R. Corbin Houchins, CorbinCounsel.com

One Response to “Siesta's Over”

  1. Bill says:

    Congratulaions Texas! Score one for less consumer choice and higher prices on wines we don't even want. Bravo!

Leave a Reply