Prepare to Raise a Glass

Attempting to triagulate the opinions of the Supreme Court based on the oral arguments can be a tricky undertaking. However, after reading newspaper accounts I'm comfortable in saying that small wineries and consumers will win their fight with liquor wholesalers on direct wine shipments to customers. The Washington Post's story (Justices Hear Dispute Over Interstate Wine Sales) begins:

Winemakers who want to ship directly to consumers across state lines got a sympathetic hearing at the Supreme Court yesterday, as the justices considered oral arguments in what could be the most significant test of states' constitutional power to regulate the alcohol trade since Prohibition.

The Post further recounts a telling moment in the oral arguments.

Yesterday's argument was not entirely one-sided. Some justices, while sympathetic to the argument in favor of direct shipping, expressed concern that it might lead to a general erosion of state control over sales not only of wine but also beer and spirits.

"Your case is very narrow, but your rationale is very sweeping," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy told former Stanford law school dean Kathleen Sullivan, who was representing the group of wine journalists and connoisseurs challenging Michigan's law.

Sullivan replied that the states and wholesalers were the ones making a sweeping argument, because "they are saying that if you wanted to bar all California wines you could do that."

This bodes well. I was a bit afraid that this case would be argued and decided so narrowly that it couldn't be more broadly applied. Lord know there are many small microbrew beers I'd like to get shipped in as well. Maybe I shouldn't get too far ahead of myself.

I'm also a little surprised that the state's case is as weak as it is. The argument that the 21st Amendment should be considered as taking precedence over the Commerce Clause barely sounds plausible let alone compelling. And it looks like I will not be calling for the immediate impeachment of any of these justices as they made short work of the states argument that this protectionism is acceptable as a means to prevent underage drinking. (From the NY Times story, Justices Pick Apart Ban on Wine Sales From State to State

Justice David H. Souter observed to Mr. Casey, Michigan's lawyer: "Your opponents argue that there are no clear countervailing interests here, so by process of elimination you get down to nothing but protectionism. What's your answer?"

The law really does enable the state to protect minors, Mr. Casey replied.

"You say that, but how?" Justice Souter persisted.

Mr. Casey's response that state regulators could punish a state-licensed business left Justice Souter clearly unsatisfied.

Go Souter Go!

Now, we just have to sit back and wait for June to roll around.

Just keep the champagne chilling.