The restrictions were nothing more than naked protectionism. From the article: The court's 5-4 decision could dramatically expand markets for small wineries that use the Internet to boost sales. It was a victory for small vineyards that had challenged state restrictions in New York and Michigan, and for consumers who have been prevented from buying wine online because their states' laws are aimed at protecting local producers.
And: In a majority opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court agreed. It said the 21st Amendment, adopted in 1933, did not allow bias against out-of-state liquor producers. "States may not enact laws that burden out-of-state producers ... simply to give a competitive advantage to in-state businesses," Kennedy wrote.
The decision is likely to end the current patchwork of laws, under which some states ban direct shipments altogether, others do so only for out-of-state wines, and still others require reciprocity.
Under the ruling, the states that ban or limit shipments of alcohol from out of state essentially will have a choice: Restrict all wine shipments - both in-state and out-of-state - or allow them all.
Attorneys for the small wineries are hoping states will drop their shipping restrictions. New York Gov. George Pataki said his state likely will opt for in-state and interstate direct shipping of wine, but he called for "safeguards" to ensure that minors do not get new access to wine.
Glad to see that the free market and common sense occasionally can win one. The Institute for Justice was involved in the case- chalk one more up for my favorite lawyers!
1 comment:
Drink and ye shall be merry. Get her to drink and both of you shall be merry!
Post a Comment