Reference no: EM133424496

Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Association v. Tennessee Alcoholic Beverage, 139 S. Ct. 2449 (2019)

Questions

1. What was the Association's reason for challenging the TABC's recommended approval of retail liquor licenses for Total Wine and Affluere? In considering your answer, you might wish to review the section "Theory and Practice" in Part One of this chapter.

2. In general, what does the dormant Commerce Clause prohibit? Which of its two principles is relevant in this case?

3. Why did the two-year durational-residency requirement violate the dormant Commerce Clause?

4. Both Michigan and New York permitted in-state wineries to obtain licenses that allowed them to ship directly to consumers while not permitting out-of-state wineries to do the same. At the time, 26 states allowed some form of direct shipping. Thirteen had reciprocity agreements such that shipments from out of state were allowed if the state of origin of the wine afforded similar nondiscriminatory treatment to its wineries. Two small wineries brought separate suits to challenge the direct ship rules of, in one case, Michigan and, in the other case, New York. How would you rule? Explain.

5. North Dakota rules required those bringing liquor into the state to file a monthly report, and out-of-state distillers selling to federal enclaves (military bases, in this instance) were required to label each item indicating that it was for consumption only within the enclave. The United States challenged those rules after sellers said they would discontinue dealing with the military bases or they would raise their prices to meet the cost of dealing with the two rules. See North Dakota v. United States, 495 U.S. 423 (1990).

a. What were the constitutional foundations of the federal government's challenge?

b. What were the state's reasons for adopting the rules?

c. How did the court hold?