Since 2005 when the Granholm v. Heald Supreme Court decision opened the floodgates for direct wine shipping legislation, questions about whether direct shipping would harm local businesses, would hurt tax revenue and would lead to a significant increase in minors accessing alcohol have been posed. It has been rare that these and other questions are answered with official studies and reports.
Now we have one and the conclusions are very good for direct shippers, local businesses, the state and consumers.
A recently issued report by the Maryland Comptroller’s office that studied the first year of direct shipping in that state since passage of a law that opened Maryland for winery-to-consumer shipping reveals that direct shipping has not only been a success, but it has been beneficial to consumers, to wineries, to state tax coffers and has had no negative impact on local businesses.
We expect this new report will play a key role in the coming debate to open up other states for direct shipping, particularly Massachusetts and Pennsylvania.
Entitled “Study on the Impact of Direct Wine Shipment” and required under the legislation that legalized winery-to-consumer shipping in 2010, the Maryland Comptroller’s report covers 6 Issues:
- Permits issued
- Volume of wine shipped
- Impact on in-state sales
- Revenue from taxes and fees
- Administration costs
- Availability of wine to Maryland consumers
The report showed that by the end of fiscal year 2012, 629 direct shipping permits had been issued to wineries. Just over 20,756 cases of wine had been shipped to Maryland addresses according to the Comptrollers report. Taken together, the permit fees along with Sales and Use tax paid on the wine shipped accounted for $693,000 in state revenue.
By contrast, the Comptroller’s report estimates that at most $138,000 was incurred by the state to administer the direct shipping program and the Comptroller estimates that going forward the costs to administer the direct shipping program will decrease.
Another concern that came up during the direct shipping debate in 2010 was that wines shipped into Maryland would negatively impact local businesses. These concerns did not come to pass. According to the Comptroller’s report, wholesalers in Maryland actually increased the amount of wine sold in the state during the report’s period by 3.61% over the previous 12-month period.
The report also examined of the issue of wine availability in the wake of the direct shipping legislation and determined there was “a positive impact on product availability and consumer choice.”
The Comptroller compared used the 2011 Wine Spectator Top 100 wines as a measure of consumer access to wine. It found that of the 56 Top 100 wines that could be available to consumers (44 imported wines on the Top 100 list are not eligible to be shipped by domestic wineries) 53 were available, 13 of which would not have been available had direct shipping been prohibited.
The Comptroller ends his report with very good news:
There have been no incidents of access to underage persons reported to the Office of the Comptroller. Additionally, there have been no significant complaints specific to the law or its implementation from the industry, permit holders, or consumers in the 17 months since the law took effect which may be an indicator of its effectiveness.
This is the first major report issued by a state agency measuring the impact of a new direct shipment law and the results are both encouraging and a reminder of the positive impact that direct shipment can have not only for consumers, but also for the state and for businesses. We believe the Maryland Comptroller’s report on direct wine shipping will be widely shared and read, particularly in the upcoming Pennsylvania and Massachusetts legislative sessions.
When H.R. 5034 (also known as the Comprehensive Alcohol Regulatory Effectiveness, or “CARE” Act) was introduced on April 15, 2010, the opposition responded quickly and forcefully. Supplier organizations were united in their opposition to the bill, referring to it as the “wholesalers monopoly protection bill”. Even the California State Legislature issued a resolution, SJR 34, that urged Congress not to pass H.R. 5034.
Proponents of the bill, including the National Beer Wholesalers Association (NBWA) and the Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America (WSWA) claimed the proposed legislation was necessary to protect state-based regulatory systems from “attack” (i.e., legal scrutiny under the U.S. constitution), claiming that “25 states have faced challenges in federal courts to their authority to regulate alcohol and their ability to maintain a licensed system of alcohol controls” since 2005.
Following months of intense debate, heated rhetoric, and an incredible amount of public relations and lobbying activity on both sides, the House Judiciary Committee did not schedule the bill for a hearing until after the August congressional recess. During the recess, Representative Bill Delahunt, lead sponsor of H.R. 5034, sent a letter to House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr., introducing new text in an what he terms effort to “perfect the language”, following “concerns about unintended [sic] consequences of the language as written”.
To help clarify the changes from the original version of H.R. 5034, we put together a redline document that highlights the revisions. The main change is the removal of section 3c, which established the presumption of validity and shifted the burden of proof in legal actions involving the regulation of alcoholic beverages. Like the original bill, the new version would immunize state laws that effect non-facial discrimination, such as capacity caps and in-person purchase requirements, if the discrimination were not proved to be “intentional”.
To better understand the revisions and the corresponding responses, we spoke with individuals from each of the tiers (the “three-tier system” includes suppliers, wholesalers and retailers) that are on the front lines of the debate.
Wholesaler organizations laud the new version as meaningful change. “While the proposed changes to the legislation address a narrower set of deregulatory concerns than the original legislation, it is certainly a step in the right direction,” says Karin Moore, Vice President and Co-General Counsel at WSWA. “The new version clarifies that the Granholm holding prohibiting facial or intentional discrimination against out-of-state producers remains the law of the land by incorporating the exact language used by Justice Kennedy in that landmark decision. The new language clearly and unequivocally confines itself to dormant Commerce Clause challenges, and addresses many of the concerns raised by opponents of the bill.”
Cary Greene, Chief Operating Officer & General Counsel at WineAmerica, sees broader implications. “There are many cases other than Granholm that elucidate how states can regulate interstate commerce in alcohol. As revised, 5034 would undermine or reverse dozens of court decisions. By scrambling settled case law, 5034 will cause years of re-litigation to try and figure out exactly what the new limits are. The fact is courts have not done anything to jeopardize core Twenty-first Amendment powers. State laws run into Constitutional trouble when they try to do something underhanded like fix prices or give an unfair market advantage to certain licensees or products. 5034 allows states to blatantly discriminate against out-of-state products without any concern for Twenty-first Amendment core purposes. From a policy standpoint, I’m not sure why that would ever be a good thing.”
“The problems with HR 5034 remain significant, despite the changes to the language,” says Tom Wark, Executive Director of Specialty Wine Retailers Association. “Discrimination against out of state products would still be allowed on a number of levels and consumers are bound to be hurt by this legislation. Significantly for retailers, HR 5034 would strip wine retailers and merchants everywhere in America of their protection under the Constitution’s Commerce Clause from discriminatory state laws. It has happened only one other time in American history that an entire industry lost its Constitutional guarantee of free and open markets based on the constitutional principle of non-discrimination. Wine merchants would be catastrophically disadvantaged by H.R. 5034.”
A hearing in the House Judiciary Committee will take place at 11:00 ET this Wednesday, September 29th. This is an important hurdle in the process of moving legislation through Congress. Expert witnesses will testify in front of the full committee on Wednesday, and many parties will also provide written testimony to debate both sides of the bill. Barring technical difficulties, the hearing should be available via live webcast. Click here to watch the webcast (RealPlayer required).
So, what are the chances that H.R. 5034 will pass? Well, it’s important to note that the bill has 146 (not an insignificant number) co-sponsors from both parties in the House. On the other hand, supplier organizations continue to be unified in their opposition (Click here to view the joint opposition letter issued by the Brewers Association, WineAmerica, Distilled Spirits Council of the United States, Wine Institute, Beer Institute, and National Association of Beverage Importers on the revised 5034). We hope to learn a lot more in the hearing on Wednesday.
If H.R. 5034 moves through both chambers of Congress (no companion bill having yet been introduced in the Senate) and is signed by President Obama, not much would change overnight. Despite numerous reports that it would mean the end of direct shipping, it would not change current state laws that allow direct shipping. It would likely be an uphill battle to completely repeal existing direct shipping laws in most states. However, H.R. 5034 would open the door in states like Florida, New Mexico, and Massachusetts, where the direct shipping laws are in flux because of court cases and Granholm issues, for new state laws that introduce non-facial discrimination such as caps on production capacity (proposed for the last several years in Florida and recently nullified as unconstitutional in Massachusetts) or in-person purchase requirements. It would also provide discriminatory options for the remaining holdout states, such as Maryland, if their resident consumers’ support for direct shipment should become effective. With potentially greater long-term significance, it would tilt the field decidedly against extension of Granholm’s nondiscrimination principle to interstate retailing by non-producing shippers and to interstate wholesaling.
Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley will not appeal a January Federal Appeals Court decision upholding an earlier District Court decision which overturned the 2005 direct shipping law. In January, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the 2008 district court ruling that found that the state law governing direct-to-consumer shipments by wineries was unconstitutional.
The court said the law has a discriminatory effect on interstate commerce because it favors instate interests by preventing direct shipments of nearly all out-of-state wine to Massachusetts consumers while allowing direct deliveries by all Massachusetts wineries.
The flawed shipment law provided that only wineries that produce less than 30,000 gallons a year and had not used a wholesaler for distribution in the last six months could ship directly to local consumers. The wholesaler backed law was enacted in 2005 and vetoed by then Governor Mitt Romney. It was enacted over his objection in 2006.
The Massachusetts Legislature is now considering legislation that will mimic the model direct shipping law which will establish a new regulatory framework for shipments by all wineries, large and small, including licensing, reporting and tracking requirements.
The Joint Committee on Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure in February reported favorably on legislation submitted by Senator Robert O’Leary (S 176) and Representative David Torrisi (H 317), two long time supporters of the model legislation. These two bills were combined into a single committee bill, H 4497. H 4497,”An Act regulating the direct shipment of wine”, has been referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means. It provides for a $100 per winery licensing fee, requires monthly reporting and tax collections, limits shipments to four cases per consumer per year per winery and establishes stiff penalties for noncompliance. The bill also attempts to address a cost-prohibitive issue that has kept common carriers such as FedEx and UPS out of the delivery market.
Wine Institute is currently working with the House Ways and Means Committee to improve the bill by addressing the common carrier issue and the four case limit. Once the bill clears this House committee, it will likely be approved by the full House.
-Carol Martel, Counsel for the Northeastern States, Wine Institute
Justified jubilation greeted the 14 January 2010 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which affirmed the federal district court decision of 19 November 2008 in Family Winemakers of California v. Jenkins, invalidating the Massachusetts “volume cap.” (see previous post “Huge win for wineries, but can I ship to Massachusetts now?” )
Oddly enough, the appellate ruling may be more important outside Massachusetts than within. There are two reasons, one quite straightforward, the other less so.
The simple reason is that the First Circuit decision merely leaves things within the state as they have been since 18 December 2008, when Judge Zobel enjoined application of the state’s maximum volume requirement to “small winery” shipping licenses, which are necessary for sales directly to consumers. Since that order, wineries of all sizes, with and without Massachusetts wholesalers, have been eligible for the license. Nevertheless, the state is not practically open to direct shipment, because the major interstate carriers find the delivery vehicle licensing requirement too burdensome and wineries have no reliable way to know whether an order would be the 27th case of direct shipment wine purchased in the year by that consumer, putting the shipper in violation of a 240-liter limit. (Those obstacles, which were not involved in Family Winemakers, are described in a previous post “Why can’t I have a Boston wine party?”)
A more subtle reason is that the First Circuit has articulated an analysis, arguably even more favorable to trade than the decision it affirmed, that may prove persuasive in other circuits with challenges to volume caps and to other so-called facially neutral features that operate to the detriment of interstate trade. That aspect of the decision is well worth a closer look –though it does require striding into a bit of a legal thicket.
Stripped to essentials, Family Winemakers is about choosing the proper test for determining the constitutionality of a state law that burdens interstate commerce in wine.
Before getting into the technicalities of constitutional tests, a little context may be helpful: As the readers of these blogs know, state laws that disadvantage interstate trade raise issues under the Commerce Clause of the federal constitution, which gives Congress power to legislate regarding commerce among the states. In subject areas, like wine distribution, where Congress has not enacted legislation that serves as a comprehensive regulatory scheme, states have some room for regulation, even if it affects interstate trade to a degree. However, the fact that interstate commerce is within Congress’s power to regulate means that in subject matter where it has not acted (where, in other words, its regulatory power is “dormant”) certain unwritten principles inherent in the Commerce Clause nevertheless limit state regulatory power. State laws that exceed those limits are said to offend the “dormant Commerce Clause.” As a leading case puts it, “The modern law of what has come to be called the dormant Commerce Clause is driven by concern about economic protectionism –that is, regulatory measures designed to benefit in-state economic interests by burdening out-of-state competitors.”
In Granholm, the Supreme Court famously invalidated Michigan and New York laws for violating the dormant Commerce Clause by reserving direct shipment privileges for home state wineries. Family Winemakers is one of the most promising among many lawsuits attempting to discern the core message of Granholm and apply it to different facts.
Why Granholm Doesn’t Provide All the Answers
Granholm dealt with laws whose “object and design” to discriminate against out-of-state wineries was “evident” from their text and which in fact did discriminate. The Court considered how the presence of those factors —intent to discriminate and effect of discriminating— affected the answers to two distinct questions.
The first question concerned the 21st Amendment and certain federal legislation, which, taken together, affirmed the right of states to regulate wine from outside the state as fully as wine produced in the state and declared it illegal to ship wine into a state in contravention of “any” its laws. Does that broad language, the Court asked, permit the states intentionally to discriminate against interstate commerce (as a literal reading might suggest)? After an extensive and somewhat controversial historical analysis of the federal statutes and the constitutional amendment, the Court answered “no,” concluding that the dormant Commerce Clause subjects alcoholic beverage regulation to the same tests of constitutionality as apply to laws governing other goods.
The second question was what test would apply. In Granholm’s analysis, the choice between the two relevant tests was obvious. As stated in a leading case:
[W]here simple economic protectionism is effected by state legislation, a virtually per se rule of invalidity has been erected . . . . But where other legislative objectives are credibly advanced and there is no patent discrimination against interstate trade, the Court has adopted a much more flexible approach . . . .
Having caught the two states before it red-handed at economic protectionism, the Court had no trouble applying the strict test, which invalidates a law unless the state clearly demonstrates with “concrete” evidence that it is necessary for an essential state purpose and there is no workable less-discriminatory means of achieving the purpose. Neither defendant state even came close to meeting that standard, with the result we all know.
So, great: No 21st Amendment immunity and a flunked dormant Commerce Clause test; commerce wins, grapes are freed. But what if the law in question were not overtly discriminatory? What if it treated all wineries alike and only incidentally burdened interstate commerce? Would it then receive the “more flexible approach?”
On its face, the law invalidated in Family Winemakers took no account of whether a winery were in-state or out-of-state. It was, in the phrase popular with its proponents, “facially neutral” as between local and interstate sellers.
Defenders of volume caps and on-site requirements argue that facial neutrality has two profound effects: For alcoholic beverages, it invokes 21st Amendment immunity from dormant Commerce Clause challenge, which was repudiated in Granholm for facially discriminatory laws; and, even if there were no immunity, it would require application of the “more flexible” test of constitutionality, under which a statute will be upheld unless the burden imposed on interstate commerce is “clearly excessive” in relation to the claimed local benefits, rather than the strict necessity test Granholm applied to facially discriminatory laws. Neither argument survived the First Circuit’s treatment of Family Winemakers.
Not a Vaccine
The district court judge had dismissed the immunity argument summarily, citing a passage in Granholm that actually refers to an extraterritoriality case in which the Court did not expressly reject immunity, but rather spoke of the need to “reconcile the interests protected by the two constitutional provisions” (i.e., the 21st Amendment and the Commerce Clause), and two post-Granholm decisions in other circuits that did not deal explicitly with the immunity issue at all. While her no-immunity conclusion seems sound, the opinion left room to argue that the lower court did not fully deal with the facial neutrality immunity argument.
The appellate opinion takes a different tack. First, the Court of Appeals articulates a more specific repudiation of a 21st Amendment immunity defense for all facially neutral laws, formulating a useful test: Even though the statute is “neutral on its face,” if its effect is to “change the competitive balance” between in-state and out-of-state wineries in a way that benefits local wineries and “significantly burdens” their out-of-state competitors, the result is the same as for facially discriminatory statutes in Granholm –no 21st Amendment immunity.
In reaching that conclusion, the First Circuit somewhat surprisingly begins by distinguishing Granholm. That is, after admitting that Granholm dealt only with facially discriminatory statutes, the court set forth on its own to decide whether the 21st Amendment provided Massachusetts with immunity from dormant Commerce Clause challenge to a discriminatory statute everyone agreed was facially neutral. It nonetheless took guidance from Granholm in viewing the question as resolvable by historical context and in reading the 21st Amendment as preserving only the pre-Prohibition regulatory power Congress allows states under the Wilson Act and the Webb-Kenyon Act –i.e., the right to regulate out-of-state wine on the same basis as in-state wine, but not to discriminate against the former in favor of the latter.
By engaging in relatively extensive history-grounded analysis, the First Circuit has provided sound support for the proposition that Granholm’s no-immunity ruling applies to all discriminatory measures, whether overtly protectionist or facially neutral. Courts adjudicating laws that burden interstate commerce relative to local have in Family Winemakers well-expounded judicial authority for ignoring putative 21st Amendment immunity. On the other hand, extension of Granholm to different scenarios, no matter how persuasively reasoned, cannot forestall further argument over the “narrow Granholm” approach advanced by states and wholesalers, which would preserve pre-2005 law for every situation that does not exactly match Granholm’s facts.
Question and Answer
If immunity is out of the picture, the primary issue becomes how to test a statute under the dormant Commerce Clause –i.e., what questions should a court ask to determine whether a statute will be upheld or struck down? Family Winemakers follows prevailing Commerce Clause jurisprudence in recognizing the two possibilities noted above, a strict “per se” test requiring proven necessity or a more flexible balancing test.
The states and wholesalers argue that facial neutrality would, at least in the absence of proven intentional protectionism, automatically require the more flexible approach, known as the Pike test after the shortened name of the case that first formulated it. However, the Pike test as developed in case law is not invoked by superficial characteristics.
As enunciated in Granholm and its progeny, the Pike test requires a two-stage inquiry. First, a court asks two questions: Does the challenged state law regulate “even-handedly” as between interstate commerce and local commerce? Is whatever burden it places on the former an “indirect” consequence of its pursuit of a legitimate local interest? Only if the answer is “yes” to both does one apply the balancing test, which asks whether the burden on interstate commerce is “clearly excessive” in relation to the legitimate state purpose. If the answer to that highly subjective third question is “no,” the state law stands. For none of those questions is the answer determined by facial appearance.
In the district court analysis, a law adopted for a protectionist purpose that has the intended effect of favoring in-state commerce relative to interstate cannot meet the even-handed regulation and indirect burden requirements for application of the Pike balancing test, and is thus subject to the strict necessity test employed in Granholm, irrespective of facial neutrality. Judge Zobel went on to buttress her ruling by declaring that that even if the law constituted even-handed regulation with only incidental burdens on interstate sellers, entitling it to application of the Pike test, it would still be invalid because it did not advance any local purpose (other than the illegitimate objective of protectionism). The court’s reasoning seems almost mathematical: As the Pike test preserves a statute only when its adverse impact on interstate commerce is not excessive in comparison to a legitimate local benefit, if its local benefit is zero, any burden is excessive, and Pike won’t save it.
Adding the “but even if” reference to Pike as insurance against reversal for applying the wrong test is de rigueur in the courts and good for the prevailing litigant in the case at hand. The district court approach does not, however, prevent argument that Family Winemakers is “really” a Pike balance decision because the statute’s “facial neutrality” should have averted application of the strict necessity test –i.e., the outcome is a simple failure of the state to make an adequate record of local benefit, correctible in future litigation.
Again, the Court of Appeals opinion has a slightly different slant. The appellate court regards application of the strict necessity test as unquestionable under Granholm when, as in that case, a statute is protectionist in both intent and effect. Probably the most significant aspect of the First Circuit opinion is the means by which it so classifies the Massachusetts law.
Put Away that Smoking Gun
If anything moderated pro-trade celebration of the district court decision in Family Winemakers, it was the concern that the record was so strong on protectionist purpose that the case might not serve as a highly useful precedent for other cases, whose records will mostly be at best ambiguous on legislative intent.
Judge Zobel placed great stress on what is by any standard a sensationally revealing legislative history. Senator Morrissey, who sponsored the legislation, is quoted at length in the district court opinion, but a short bite will serve here to illustrate the tenor: “[W]ith the limitations that we are suggesting in the legislation, we are really still giving an inherent advantage indirectly to the local wineries.” The court was also impressed by the fruit wine exemption, a product of lobbying whose sole purpose appeared to be shielding a large local winery from going over the cap by producing cider.
In the Court of Appeals, proof of protectionist purpose rests on a more broadly applicable base. The finding of discriminatory intent explicitly rests not on the “smoking gun” statements of legislators or lobbyists, which featured so prominently in the district court opinion, but on the appellate court’s reading of the statute itself. Close attention to the text revealed a volume cap at odds with prevailing industry classification of wineries as objectively large or small, or as able or unable to secure wholesaler distribution, as well as with the state’s own size demarcation for license fees. The court was particularly impressed by the facts that ultimately there was no winery size standard at all, given that non-grape wine volume would not be counted and that the fruit wine exemption allowed an over-30,000-gallon Massachusetts winery to enjoy “small” winery benefits. Revealing intent by a combination of textual analysis and reference to objective data should be applicable to other “facially neutral” restraints before other courts, without need for thrilling exposés.
Interestingly, the First Circuit’s discussion of what constitutes evidence of discriminatory intent includes the suggestion that putting forward palpably false claims of permissible purposes is itself evidence that the real purpose is impermissible. It would be charmingly ironic if the states’ and wholesalers’ practice of asserting that discriminatory statutes do not discriminate, were adopted to help small producers, and are indispensible for preventing a parade of horrible consequences resulted in judicial findings of protectionist purpose.
Objective data also underlie the First Circuit’s finding of burdensome effect. The court follows the approach of its petroleum product distribution decision, Exxon, when it says a statute is “plainly” discriminatory if its effect is to cause local goods to constitute a larger share, and goods with an out-of-state source to constitute a smaller share, of the total sales in the market –a demonstrable effect of the statute under consideration.
Once the statute was classified as discriminatory in purpose and effect, it became subject to the strict necessity test, with its “concrete record evidence” requirement, which the state did not attempt to meet. As the appellate court pointed out, the record revealed the opposite of necessity, i.e., the existence of a non-discriminatory means of helping wineries unable to secure wholesaler distribution –passing a direct shipment law based on the NCSL model bill, as he governor had urged– and no reason why that would have been unworkable.
Scaling Cherry Hill
The beneficial ruling from the First Circuit is all the more welcome in light of its earlier opinion in a failed suit challenging Maine’s on-site-only direct consumer sale law, Cherry Hill Vineyard v. Baldacci.
The Baldacci decision can be read in various ways and had been advanced by direct shipment opponents as recognizing a “no direct shipping market” defense to Commerce Clause challenge. In brief, the theory is that if no purchases in the state can be fulfilled by direct shipment, there is no market from which out-of-state wineries could be excluded or in which they could be disadvantaged, and therefore no discrimination. The Family Winemaker defendants claimed it supported the proposition that without “explicit” discrimination, a law would not violate the dormant Commerce Clause, or at worst would be judged under the Pike test.
In Judge Zobel’s view, Baldacci turned on the absence of evidence of indirect discriminatory effects and thus presented no obstacle to her decision in Family Winemakers, in which the plaintiffs had presented effects evidence. However, her argument for distinguishing Baldacci seems to consist of two conflicting lines of reasoning.
According to one branch of her analysis, it is possible to mount a Commerce Clause attack on “leveled down” systems that equally deny direct shipment to in-state and out-of-state wineries, provided the facts show that distant wineries are losing sales to locals because they cannot use the natural means of doing nationwide business, direct shipment. It follows that the result in Baldacci would have been different had the plaintiffs made the factual showing, a proposition consistent with statements in that opinion. Judge Zobel was able to cite extensive evidence of discriminatory effects in the record before her, supporting her decision not to reach the same result as in Baldacci. So far, so good; but judges have a tendency to pile on alternative rationales in distinguishing a difficult precedent.
The second branch of her reasoning explicitly adopts another aspect of Baldacci –that there was no discrimination in the Maine system because no winery was allowed to use direct shipment, while Massachusetts permitted it for wineries below the volume cap.
The “no direct shipping market” theory directly contravenes the district court’s first line of reasoning and is, I believe, fallacious, because the Commerce Clause protects commerce, not means of delivery. A Granholm issue arises if a state favors any local market in a line of goods, even one limited to on-site sales, by directly burdening interstate sellers who are compelled by economics to use a different distribution method. Whether leveling down to all face-to-face sales constitutes discrimination subject to the strict necessity test is a hotly contested question in current Granholm litigation.
The no-local market defense theory arises from Baldacci’s misapplying Exxon, where there was no local market, to a local market in which in-state wineries made on-site sales, protected from out-of-state competition. The First Circuit clarifies Exxon in Family Winemakers:
Exxon held that a law that restricts a market consisting entirely of out-of-state interests is not discriminatory because there is no local market to benefit. Exxon is not apposite where, as here, there is an in-state market and the law operates to its competitive benefit. Massachusetts cannot apply Exxon only to "large" wineries as distinct from "small" wineries; the wine market is a single although differentiated market, and § 19F’s two provisions [the statute in question] operate on that market together.
The First Circuit went on to distinguish its decision in Baldacci (which was submitted for decision on an agreed written fact statement) as dealing with an unsupported challenge:
That case involved a challenge to a Maine law that allowed wineries to sell to consumers only in face-to-face transactions. That challenge failed because plaintiffs did not introduce any evidence that the law benefitted Maine vineyards or harmed out-of-state wineries.
Baldacci only addressed the kind of showing required when a statute is challenged as discriminatory in effect but is concededly non-discriminatory in purpose. We did not address whether a lesser showing might suffice when a law is allegedly discriminatory in both effect and purpose. We do not reach this question because even under the standard in Baldacci, plaintiffs have shown § 19F is discriminatory in effect.
The First Circuit decision encourages examination of what has been regarded as a central tenet of Granholm jurisprudence, the “level field” model. It is a commonplace that protectionist discrimination can be cured by leveling up or down; it other words, that a state can comply with the Commerce Clause by permitting direct shipment for both in-state and out-of-state wineries or by denying it to both. Such a mechanistic approach, however, leads to uncritical acceptance of formalistically even-handed schemes like on-site-only laws, notwithstanding their disparate impact on nearby and distant wineries. Putting facial neutrality in perspective, as occurs in Family Winemakers, should support critical examination of other playing fields that are only superficially level.
You Can’t Have Everything
Welcome as it is, the First Circuit opinion in Family Winemakers does not answer all the questions the case raises. Following sound judicial practice, the court prudently made the most easily defensible ruling on the record before it. The opinion’s principal limitation is that on both 21st Amendment immunity and choice of test under the dormant Commerce Clause it deals with a statute convincingly shown to be effectively and intentionally discriminatory against interstate commerce.
Thus, Family Winemakers throws a spotlight on unsettled post-Granholm issues: What test applies if a state statute is discriminatory in effect but not intent? What if it was intended to discriminate, but fails to do so (assuming anyone has an interest in arguing about it in that instance)? If it is evenhanded, but would flunk the Pike balancing test on proof of the local interest pursued, could it be saved by using a lower standard for liquor? What, if anything, is left after Granholm of the concept that a state can balance “core 21st Amendment interests,” such as temperance, against the Commerce Clause?
 The law had required wineries producing more than 30,000 gallons annually of grape wine to forego any sales to wholesalers in the state if they sold directly to consumers.
 To “distinguish” an earlier case is lawyer jargon for finding a difference in recited facts or some other aspect that could justify reaching a different result in the case at hand.
 I don’t have a snappy name for the first alternative, sometimes referred to in this post as the “strict necessity test.” If named after a case it could be the Philadelphia test, the Dean Milk test or the Maine v. Taylor test, etc., but no commonly accepted moniker has developed.