The states of Michigan and New York both statutes and regulations which prohibit the out of state wine producers to make sale of their wine to consumers. In both states out of state wine producers are required to pay wholesaler fees and are little competition for instate wine producers. Several out of state wine produces and also consumers brought suit against both the states of Michigan and New York in their federal districts challenging that the laws prohibit direct shipment.
DECISIONS BELOW:
The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the out of state restrictions violated the Commerce clause. Michigan appealed. The 2nd circuit Court of Appeals upheld New York statute as constitutional. Michigan and the wine producers appealed.
LEGAL ISSUE(s):
Does the direct sale of wine to consumers by out of state producers violate the commerce clause, in light of the 21st amendment?
HOLDING:
No. Affirmed, as to the judgment of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals; reversed and remanded as to the judgment of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.
REASONING:
The regulations and statutes of both Michigan and New York are discriminatory to out of state wine producers. In both cases it offers in state wine producers an competitive advantage affecting interstate commerce which brings the Commerce clause into play.
PERSONAL OPINION:
I agree with the Supreme Court’s ruling in this regard. The 6th Circuit Court was correct in its affirmation, there was grounds for the reversed and remanded decision by the 2nd Circuit Court of appeals. The complaint brought by out of state wine producers and consumers was proper under the guide that in both states regulations and statutes violated the commerce
