Is Alcohol Subject to The Commerce Clause’s Restrictions?

Granholm v. Heald

New York and Michigan had laws that regulated the importation of alcohol, and as it happens, these regulations made it much more difficult (if not prohibitively so) for out of state wineries to sell directly to the consumer. For example, in New York, to be able to ship directly to the consumer, a winery would have to open a physical branch in the state. Truth be told this is a very long (73 pages) and relatively boring decision, especially considering how much of it is simply a historical analysis of previous cases dealing with the 21^st Amendment.

The second clause of the 21^st Amendment states that “[t]he transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.” In addition, two acts are addressed in this decision, the Webb-Kenyon Act (which is as far as I can tell the same), and the Wilson act. Essentially, the majority is of the opinion that while these acts, in light of the 21^st Amendment, allow states to essentially limitlessly regulate alcohol, the “state laws violate the Commerce Clause if they mandate ‘differential treatment of in-state and out-of-state economic interests that benefits the former and burdens the latter.’” The majority also holds that whatever interest a state has in limiting commerce in alcohol is not justified by this differential treatment because there would be more effective ways of guarding this interest.

The dissent on the other hand uses (among other things) historical decisions regarding clause 2 of the 21^st Amendment to show that when it was enacted its purpose, and the purpose of the two congressional acts, were to put alcohol in a special situation in terms of Congress’ power to regulate commerce.

Here’s my two cents. This decision is long on history and short on real justification (on both sides). Yes, our country is founded on economic freedom, and the prohibition against states discriminating against imports is not new, but by the terms of the amendment and laws, the dissent has a point. As for the dissent, these laws are no more wrong now than they were before, so if it is ok for the states to discriminate against imports, fine (though I doubt it). Otherwise, this is just the way it goes.