WSWA spins the Court Ruling

[Botafogo]

Do you think Juanita Duggans (WSWA Spokes-Hole) has to get one of those wet naps treated wit Preparation H to soothe her backside after a blast of putrid hot air like this? Did anyone else see the excellent piece on 60 Minutes last night called "On Bullshit"? This may require that professor to write Volume 2!

WSWA's spin on the ruling:

SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS STATES' BROAD AUTHORITY
TO REGULATE ALCOHOL

States Must Treat In-State and Out-of-State Alcohol Producers the Same: Court Holds Three-Tier System: "Unquestionably Legitimate"


WASHINGTON, D.C. (May 16, 2005)-The Supreme Court today upheld a state's right to regulate the sale and distribution of alcohol within its own borders but said states must also treat in-state and out-of-state alcohol producers the same.

In a 5-4 ruling, the Court struck down laws in Michigan and New York that restricted out-of-state alcohol producers from bypassing the states' regulatory regimes that require face-to-face transactions. In doing so, the Court rejected the states' argument that in-state producers could be more easily regulated and, therefore, could be permitted to ship via mail order or over the Internet.

Today's ruling forces states to decide whether to allow everyone or no one to sell alcohol through the mail or over the Internet.

Writing for the Court, Justice Kennedy said, the three-tier system is "unquestionably legitimate."

The Court embraced a state's right to protect its residents and watch over the way alcohol is sold and distributed within its borders.

"'The Twenty-first Amendment grants the States virtually complete control over whether to permit importation or sale of liquor and how to structure the liquor distribution system.' A State which chooses to ban the sale and consumption of alcohol altogether could bar its importation; and, as our history shows, it would have to do so to make its laws effective," Justice Kennedy added.

"The Court today affirmed a state's right to regulate the sale and distribution of alcohol and said in doing so they must treat in-state, out-of-state and presumably out-of-country producers all the same," President and CEO Juanita D. Duggan said. "That means states have a choice between supporting face-to-face transactions by someone licensed to sell alcohol or opening up the floodgates."

"State policies are protected under the Twenty-first Amendment when they treat liquor produced out of state, the same as its domestic equivalent," Justice Kennedy added.
Justice Thomas, writing for the dissent, said the majority made a "mistake" in ignoring the history and purpose of the 21st Amendment.

More than 30 states had sided with New York and Michigan arguing that the existing controls allow local officials to place limits on the number of vendors licensed to sell within a state; enable officials to investigate meaningfully who those vendors will be; empower states to better enforce their laws regarding illegal sales, particularly sales to minors; and provide concrete assurance that those privileged to sell alcohol actually collect the required taxes.

"WSWA supports state efforts to strengthen - not weaken - alcohol laws by making all producers play from the same set of rules that ensure accountable, responsible alcohol sales," Duggan said. "Face-to-face ID checks by those licensed to sell alcohol are the best way to do that."