Raise Your Pinot: Supremes Scuttle Wine Shipment Ban
In a 5-4 ruling today, the US Supreme Court struck down laws in NY and Michigan that barred the direct shipment of out-of-state wines.
"Laws such as those at issue contradict the principles underlying this rule by depriving citizens of their right to have access to other states' markets on equal terms," the majority held, in an opinion by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.
The ruling is a victory for small wineries and consumers, who can now connect directly. Availability will no longer be limited to what wholesalers can provide, which likely means that prices will fall.
Justice Kennedy wrote today that the real object of the Michigan and New York statutes was not protection of minors but rather to give in-state wineries a competitive advantage over those in other states. Justice Kennedy ... was joined by Justices Antonin Scalia, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.
In 2004, there were over three hundred wineries in Oregon, and they sold 1.3 million cases of wine.
|
May 16, 2005
Posted in in the news 2005. |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
May 16, '05
Love the breakdown of justices -- Kennedy, Scalia, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer v. the rest. How often does this lineup happen?
1:57 p.m.
May 16, '05
The ruling is a victory for small wineries and consumers, who can now connect directly.
Well, actually, maybe not. New York, Michigan, and the rest could instead choose to ban all shipments of wine, period. The ruling simply said that they couldn't discriminiate between in-state and out-of-state wineries.
Of course, in practice, it's unlikely that the state legislators in those states are going to reduce the ability to ship.
Also, folks in those states will have to wait until their legislatures act anyway.
May 16, '05
Let's not forget that our own good Attorney General, Hardy Myers, played a key role here by submitting a brief to the Court -- also signed by the Washington and California AGs -- urging the Court to halt this unequal treatment of out-of-state wineries.
This is just one of many good things that Hardy has done for the state that has gone almost completely unnoticed (mostly because Hardy does very little to call attention to his accomplishments). Way to go, Hardy!
3:20 p.m.
May 16, '05
Does or should this decision take wind out of the sails of the Oregon wine industry who vigorously fight tax increases?
Discuss.
May 16, '05
Those who have drunk NY wine will understand the need for market protection.
May 17, '05
Those who have drunk NY wine will understand the need for market protection.
Heh.
May 17, '05
I amazed.
Progressives embracing a freer market for alcohol?
I guess access to more wine choices and competitive pricing is an attractive feature for penetrating government regulatory monopolies.
Of course I agree.
I'm just wondering how to generate that same enthusiasm for market reforms in the delivery of education.
May 17, '05
Ah, yes, the old "government should treat alcohol and the education of its citizens the same" argument...
Makes perfect sense.
May 17, '05
Pancho-
It's not about free markets, or alcohol. It's about getting our hands on some really good wine. We're not members of the Reich who have delusions of grandeur such that we would not consider wine from another place as possibly better. We are open to the possibility of there being better wine elsewhere. At the least, we would like to taste other wines, to be sure Oregon's is in fact THE BEST.
As to the free market education, wouldn't it be grand if Wal-Mart educated our children?
Stay on topic, Pancho! We're talking wine here, and that's almost as important as beer. Want to talk about education, you're on the wrong string.
10:29 a.m.
May 17, '05
Progressives embracing a freer market for alcohol?
Ah, come on. Progressives have long ago given up our commie ways. But what we like is a nice, regulated free market that ensures competition and fair practices.
May 17, '05
Sorry to be the black fly in your Chardonnay, but isn't it ironic that liberals embrace free(r) markets for booze (whether its opening wine markets, keeping the beer taxes low or getting rid of the OLCC) while social conservatives tend to oppose such things.
But if you bring up education you get the opposite answer from both sides.
It's seems to me that social conservatives want to limit your intoxication choices for the same reason that liberals want to limit your child's education options.
Each are afraid of how you might exercise your liberty in a free market.
7:43 a.m.
May 18, '05
but isn't it ironic that liberals embrace free(r) markets for booze (whether its opening wine markets, keeping the beer taxes low or getting rid of the OLCC) while social conservatives tend to oppose such things.
We should discuss economics at Blue Oregon sometime. The suggestion that liberals are anti-free market is as false as the notion that conservatives are pro-free market. Based on current trends, a more accurate description would be that liberals support small business and competititve markets, while conservatives favor unregulated corporate behemoths.
May 18, '05
Well said, Jeff!
We should trumpet that descrption ad neaseum so people get it! It's almost bumper sticker size so the Kool Aid drinkers can understand it.
9:27 a.m.
May 18, '05
a more accurate description would be that liberals support small business and competitive markets, while conservatives favor unregulated corporate behemoths.
Great point Jeff. I think most Democrats, and probably most Republicans as well, favor level playing fields and competitive markets.
The problem is that on the far right you have people who favor stacking the regulatory playing field in favor of huge corporations and the super rich, while on the far left we have folks who still believe in socialism and are against freer trade, even if it's fair and on a level playing field.
But Pancho is right that in the minds of most voters, Republicans are in favor of free trade and competition while Democrats are in favor of protectionism, price controls, etc.
Republicans always talk a good game about how they are in favor of the free market, even when they're not, but Democrats try to finesse the issue to the point where most people don't know where they really stand. Are they really in favor of small business and competitive markets operating on a fair and level playing field, or are they really in camp with the anti-globalization protesters and unions who want to defeat free trade agreements and repeal NAFTA, the WTO, etc.
The way the debate has been framed so far is that you are either in one camp or the other, but not both or anything in between.
The challenge is how to change this impression with a 30 second elevator pitch rather than a 1,000 word policy paper, without losing any support from groups in the Democratic coalition.
May 19, '05
Frankly, I'd rather drink liberally than conservatively...