Like this article? We recommend
Like this article? We recommend
Like this article? We recommend
Reading the Tea Leaves
Many a Supreme Court watcher winds up being surprised by the way actual decisions shape up. And this case is no different. Sifting the oral argument transcript carefully reveals that the Justices' questions jumped between a dozen or more areas, but focused ultimately on whether the various state prohibitions are "mere protectionism" or address legitimate state concerns, such as sales to minors, and whether States could craft alternate means of effectively regulating out-of-state wine sellers.
My prediction? I'll go out on a limb and say that the Court will strike down the elements of New York and Michigan's three-tiered schemes that do directly discriminate against out-of-state wineries, but uphold the States' otherwise broad 21st Amendment regulatory power. That's the easy part. How the court goes about reaching this conclusion—and, more importantly, perhaps clarifying just what States can and cannot do in regulating interstate commerce—will keep an army of lawyers across the U.S. busy on the morning the decision is announced.
At a time when States faced with budget shortfalls are aggressively searching for every bit of tax money they can find and are tracking down and claiming taxes from Internet sales (as New York State and New York City have in the past year), you can expect the Court's rationale to make its way into other commerce clause-related arguments, even discounting the otherwise unique 21st Amendment tie-in here.
In waiting for the Court's decision I've reserved an excellent bottle of Washington State Pepper Bridge Winery's 2001 Walla Walla Valley Merlot with my name on it down at my local wine store. It's just too bad I wasn't able to order it directly online.