Wine Without Borders

Consumers and Free Trade Win In Michigan

October 2, 2008 – 7:48 am

There is no other way to describe the October 1, 2008 decision in the Michigan case of Siesta Village Market v. Granholm as anything other than a complete victory for consumers, free trade advocates and constitutionalism. Judge Donna Hood ruled that Michigan’s discriminatory laws that allow Michigan wine lovers to have wine shipped to them from in-state wine retailers but prohibit the same from out-of-state wine retailers is unconstitutional.

Of course, this kind of ruling should sound familiar. It is essentially the same decision that the Supreme Court of the United States rendered in May 2005 when it ruled in Granholm v. Heald that the 21st Amendment does not give the state “the authority to pass non-uniform laws in order to discriminate against out-of-state goods.”

And this is exactly what the Michigan law did.

But Michigan is not alone. Among the other states that have similarly discriminatory and unconstitutional laws in place we find California, Washington, Texas, Illinois, New York and New Jersey, just to name a few.

This is the second time this year that a Federal District Court has leveled a stinging rebuke to states that ignore the desires and needs of consumers by instituting laws that discriminate against inter-state commerce. Both in his present case as well as the Texas lawsuit ruled on earlier this year, the courts leaned on the Granholm decision for authority.

It’s unlikely that either of these decisions will convince many of those in the wine community and regulatory community that the principles of Granholm do indeed apply to retailers just as they apply to wineries. Since the Granholm decision came down in 2005 a very cynical, self serving, anti-consumer attitude has infect those that claim that Granholm was only about wineries. This akin to saying that Brown v. Board of Education was only about the rights of little African-American girls to not be discriminated against in school attendance, but didn’t apply to little Hispanic girls. It’s faulty reasoning that can’t be defended.

It should also be noted that Professor Alex Tanford of the University of Indiana School of Law, the lawyer who brought this case to Michigan, should be commended for his outstanding work here on behalf of consumers, retailers and U.S. Constitution. His work led to a straightforward decision by Judge Hood.

What comes next is likely to be an appeal by the State of Michigan as well as the Michigan Wholesalers who intervened in this case. They are likely to ask for a stay of the ruling that requires the State of Michigan from enforcing laws against purchase and shipping of wine from out-of-state retailers to Michiganers. It’s unknown if the stay would be granted. Professor Tanford is sure to argue strenuously against such a blatantly anti-consumer move.

Specialty Wine Retailers Association applauds this latest decision. We continue to work to educate legislators, consumers, courts and the media about the rash of anti-consumer and anti-Free Trade laws that exist across the country and serve to benefit a small clique of very powerful economic interests who use their privileged place within the alcohol distribution system to protect themselves from competition and bar consumers from accessing the full measure of wines in the American marketplace.