Supreme Court Toasts Economic Liberty in Tennessee Wine Case - Cheers!

This morning, in a win for wine-drinkers and freedom-lovers alike (but I repeat myself), the Supreme Courtstruck down a heavily restrictive Tennessee law that prevented anyone but longtime state residents from getting liquor licenses. The provisions required applicants for an initial license to have lived in the state for two years and for a renewal of that to reside for 10 years, and prevented corporations from getting licenses unless all stockholders were residents. This hurt both would-be small business owners and large distributors like Total Wine& More (one of the parties; full disclosure: I have reserve status in its loyalty program).It ’s terrific that a lopsided majority of justices (7-2) thus preserved economic liberty and interstate commerce, as against a flawed claim that the 21st Amendment (which repealed prohibition and gave states the power to regulate the importation of alcohol) somehow gives states the power to impose o therwise unconstitutional business regulations. As Justice Samuel Alito put it in his majority opinion, Section 2 of the 21st Amendment “is not a license to impose all manner of protectionist restrictions on commerce in alcoholic beverages.”To put a finer point on it, states ’ power to regulate alcohol doesn’t include the power to protect established businesses against newcomers that want to serve Volunteer State consumers. When a state law discriminates against interstate commerce or favors in-state economic interests over out-of-st...
Source: Cato-at-liberty - Category: American Health Authors: Source Type: blogs