Case No. 18-96, 6th Cir.
Preview by Michelle Divelbiss, Online Editor
It isn’t often that the Supreme Court addresses the 21st Amendment. In fact, there are only a handful of Supreme Court cases that involve this amendment, and this is only the third such case in thirty years.
States have authority under the dormant Commerce Clause to “directly to regulate the sale or use of liquor within [their] borders.” Brief for Petitioner at 6, Tennessee Wine & Spirits Retailers Assn. v. Blair, No. 18-96 (U.S. filed Nov. 13, 2018) (quoting Capital Cities Cable, Inc. v. Crisp, 467 U.S. 691, 713 (1984)). To obtain a retail license to sell liquor in Tennessee, an individual must have been a Tennessee resident for at least two years; to renew a retail license, ten consecutive years of residency are required. For corporations or other legal entities who seek to obtain a retail license, all directors and officers must also satisfy the residency requirement. For all publicly-traded corporations, all stockholders must also conform to the residency requirements.
Respondent Tennessee Fine Wines & Spirits, LLC had applied for a retail license but hit a wall with the ten-year residency requirement. Each retail license is valid for only one year, and the renewal requirement effectively requires individuals to establish and maintain residency for at least nine years before applying for a retail license. The district court held that these residency requirements are unconstitutional because they “treat[] out-of-state economic interests differently from in-state economic interests,” and the Sixth Circuit affirmed. Id. at 13–14. Respondent argues that the Sixth Circuit’s holding was correct, especially because the Tennessee Attorney General had “previously admitted that the [residency] requirements are trade barriers that facially discriminate against interstate commerce.” Brief for Respondent at i, Tennessee Wine & Spirits Retailers Assn. v. Blair, No. 18-96 (U.S. filed Nov. 13, 2018). Petitioner, an association of Tennessee retailers, argues that the residency requirements help the state to ensure that retailers are “knowledgeable about the community’s needs and [are] committed to its welfare.” Brief for Petitioner at 16, Tennessee Wine & Spirits Retailers Assn. v. Blair, No. 18-96 (U.S. filed Nov. 13, 2018) (quoting Byrd v. Tenn. Wine & Spirits Retailers Ass’n, 883 F.3d 608, 633 (6th Cir. 2018) (Sutton, J., dissenting)). The Supreme Court will likely have to balance in-state and out-of-state interests, and this decision could affect other states that have a residency requirement for liquor retail licenses.
There are a lot of amici curiae interested in this case. The George Washington University Law School’s own Dean Morrison has filed an amicus brief, urging the Court to affirm the decision of the circuit court on alternative grounds.