viagra de venta en españa viagra express rapide cialis argo prix viagra en france cialis genéricos farmaco viagra compra kamagra pastiglie euro viagra belgique ordonnance levitra online kaufen comprar cialis farmacia online kamagra kaufen günstig achat cialis viagra cialis pris apotek comprar kamagra barata ajanta acheter viagra espagne
cialis genericos españa acheter en ligne viagra generique viagra suisse viagra rezeptfrei wien site francais de viagra cialis moins cher en france levitra 20 mg comprar comprar viagra contrareembolso españa levitra vai cialis viagra france pharmacie prix cialis france kamagra moins cher preis viagra sildenafil levitra te koop kamagra sousajours

Siesta’s Over

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

1 Comment

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

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>