---
SCOTUSblog is reporting that the Supreme Court has struck down the two state laws that banned the direct sale of wine to consumers from out-of-state wineries (particularly over the Internet). SCOTUSblog also has the links to the opinions here.
The cases were interesting in that they pitted two constitutional provisions against each other: the plain language of the Twenty-First Amendment (repealing Prohibition) and the non-existent language of the so-called Dormant Commerce Clause (prohibiting states from unduly burdening out-of-state competitors).
I was on the wrong side of the debate, but then again it was 5-4, so I'm not embarrassed. Hopefully the split means that plain-language textualism is making a comeback. I look forward to reading the opinions.
Yes, from a libertarian perspective it's "neat-o" that New Yorkers such as myself can now buy out-of-state wine directly over the Internet. But far more "neat-o" is the idea that the Constitution "means what it says and says what it means."
Salut!
UPDATE: Apparently the split was Justice Kennedy writing the majority for Scalia, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer. The dissent was written by Justice Thomas for Rehnquist, O'Connor and Stevens. Scalia on the same side as Kennedy but not the same side as Thomas? Will wonders never cease? Stevens also wrote a very short separate dissent.
Related Posts (on one page):
- The Jurisprudence of "Sorta Kinda"
- Supreme Court Strikes Down Out-of-State Wine Laws
- More on the "Cases of Wine"
To comment on this post, please visit the new blogsite.