Opposition Brief — Wine Country Gift Baskets.com v. Steen

Supreme Court brief2011

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

| Supreme Coun. 0S

FILED |

“4, A ,

” Z D a © / ¢ f ri

4) | JAN £3 ANY |

No. 10-671 | OFFICE OF THE CLERK |

IN THE

Supreme Court of the Hnited States

WINE COUNTRY GIFT BASKETS.COM, K&L WINE

MERCHANTS, BEVERAGES & MORE, INC., DAVID L.

TAPP, RONALD L. PARRISH, JEFFREY R. DAVIS,

Petitioners,

JOHN T. STEEN, JR. GAIL MADDEN, JOSE CUEVAS, JR.,

ALLEN STEEN, GLAZER’S WHOLESALE DRUG COMPANY,

INC., REPUBLIC BEVERAGE Co.,

Respondents.

On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari

To The United States Court Of Appeals

For The Fifth Circuit

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION FOR

GLAZER’S WHOLESALE DRUG COMPANY, INC.

AND REPUBLIC BEVERAGE CO.

JAMES C. HO

Counsel of Record

ASHLEY E. JOHNSON

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP

2100 McKinney Avenue, Ste. 1100

Dallas, Texas 75201

(214) 698-3100

Jho@gibsondunn.com

Counsel for Respondents

QUESTION PRESENTED

In Granholm v. Heald, 544 U.S. 460 (2005), this

Court held that the dormant Commerce Clause pro-

hibits discrimination against out-of-state alcohol

producers and products. In so doing, Granholm drew

a distinction between producers and products, on the

one hand, and distributors or retailers of alcohol, on

the other. Specifically, the majority in Granholm re-

affirmed, and the dissent agreed, that the Twenty-

first Amendment shields from dormant Commerce

Clause scrutiny state laws that channel the distribu-

tion of alcohol exclusively through in-state

wholesalers and in-state retailers, such as the three-

tier system used by Texas and numerous other

states.

The question presented is whether, contrary to

the unanimous view of the courts of appeals and the

laws of 49 States, the dormant Commerce Clause

prohibits state laws that limit the distribution of al

cohol to in-state wholesalers and in-state retailers.

RULE 29.6 STATEMENT

Respondents Glazer’s Wholesale Drug Com

pany, Inc. and Republic Beverage Co. are private

corporations. No publicly held company owns 10% or

more of either corporation’s stock.

Texas government officials John T. Steen, Jr.,

Gail Madden, Jose Cuevas, Jr., and Allen Steen were

also defendants in the court of appeals and are Re-

spondents in this Court.

11]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

STATEMENT

REASONS FOR DENYING THE PETITION

A. There Is No Split Among the Courts of

Appeals, as Petitioners Do Not Dispute

B. The Decision Below Does Not Conflict

With Granholm or Any Other Opinion

of This Court

C. This Case Presents An Unusually Poor

Vehicle To Address Direct Shipping

Laws Which Favor In-State Retailers ......... 16

CONC LAT MAIS vc scvesescxevestesnassuation siekieieeeaeeiaa ;

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)

Cases

44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island, 517

U.S. 484 (1996)

Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Schnorf, No. 10

cv-1601, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9173:

(N_D. Ill. Sept. 3, 2010)

Arnold’s Wines v. Boyle, 571 F.3d 185 (2d

Cir. 2009) passim

Brooks v. Vassar, 462 F.3d 341 (4th Cir.

Cal. Retail Liquor Dealers Ass’n v. Midcal

Aluminum, Inc., 445 U.S. 97 (1980)

Kreeman v. Corzine, Nos. 08-3268 & 08-

3302, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 25694 (3d

Cir. Dec. 17, 2010)

Granholm v. Heald, 544 U.S. 460 (2005) .........passim

Healy v. Beer Institute, 491 U.S. 324

Ne ea ccna (inkchadunniinninsnnuaiawmeb ines .10, 14

Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. La. Dep't of Ins.,

Scr Oo CEP Cir, 1995) ooo occn. nccccccsocecseseseasn AMO

Ne. Bancorp, Inc. v. Bd. of Governors of

Fed. Reserve Sys., 472 U.S. 159 (1985)........ 16

North Dakota v. United States, 495 U.S.

@ae (2990)..........

Statutes

Tex. Alco. Bev. Code Ann. §

Tex. Alco r, Code Ann. § 22.03 (Vernon

2006)

Tex. Alco.

2009)

Tex. Alco.

2009)

Tex. Aleo. Bev. Code Ann. §§ 54.01-54.12 ..

Constitutional Provisions

U.S. Const. amend. XX]

INTRODUCTION

The petition contends that this Court’s decision

in Granholm v. Heald, 544 U.S. 460 (2005), inter-

prets the dormant Commerce Clause to forbid states

from channeling the distribution of alcohol exclu-

sively through in-state wholesalers and retailers. It

did no such thing. To the contrary, the Court drew a

sharp distinction between producers and products,

on the one hand, and distributors and retailers of al-

cohol, on the other. The Court unanimously agreed

that the Twenty-first Amendment immunizes from

dormant Commerce Clause scrutiny state laws that

channel the distribution of alcoho] through in-state

wholesalers and in-state retailers, such as the three-

tier system used by Texas and numerous other

states.

Petitioners do not question, or ask this Court to

revisit, Granholm. They argue only that state laws

such as those challenged here are invalid under

Granholm, and that any argument to the contrary

misconstrues this Court’s ruling. At most, this issue

warrants further percolation and is unworthy of the

Court’s consideration at this time. After all, not a

single federal court of appeals to date has agreed

with the petition’s interpretation of Granholm. To

the contrary, the Second and Fifth Circuits have both

unanimously rejected this interpretation, and in-

stead construed Granholm specifically to authorize

such laws. What’s more, Petitioners do not contest

that their interpretation of Granholm, if adopted,

would nullify the laws of virtually every State in the

Union.

The Court should deny the petition and await

further percolation of this issue in other federal

courts of appeals before even contemplating such a

dramatic disruption to the industry. After all, if Pe-

titioners are indeed correct about their

interpretation of Granholm, a division of circuits will

emerge soon enough, and the Court can consider the

worthiness of a certiorari petition properly present-

ing that issue at that time.!

STATEMENT

1. As is true in every State in the country, in

Texas, alcohol manufacture, distribution, and sales

are subject to restrictions peculiar to the industry.

These restrictions have deep historical roots, and

stem from a “prevailing view ... that [alcohol] was a

unique product that posed unusual dangers, both di-

rectly as an intoxicant, and indirectly, as a stream of

commerce that generated corruption and crime.” Ar-

nold’s Wines v. Boyle, 571 F.3d 185, 198 (2d Cir.

2009) (Calabresi, J., concurring). When the constitu-

tional prohibition on alcohol was lifted by the

Twenty-first Amendment, the authority of States

over alcohol was given constitutional grounding. See

U.S. Const. amend. XXI, § 2 (“The transportation or

importation into any State, Territory, or possession

of the United States for delivery or use therein of in-

toxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is

1 As addressed in Section C, infra, this case is also a uniquely

bad vehicle to review the question presented, because the Fifth

Circuit identified a narrower ground for rejecting Petitioners’

challenge. As detailed below, the court of appeals observed that

Texas “has not discriminated among retailers” merely by au-

thorizing in-state retailers to make local deliveries. Pet. App.

47a. Accordingly, even a favorable judgment for Petitioners on

the question presented would not alter the judgment of the

court of appeals.

hereby prohibited.”). As this Court reaffirmed in

Granholm v. Heald, “|t]he Twenty-first Amendment

grants the States virtually complete control over . .

how to structure the liquor distribution system.”

544 U.S. 460, 488 (2005) (emphasis added) (quoting

Cal. Retail Liquor Dealers Ass’n v. Midcal Alumi-

num, Inc., 445 U.S. 97, 110 (1980)).

In an “unquestionably legitimate” exercise of

this constitutional authority, Texas, like virtually

every State, maintains a three-tier system of alcohol

distribution. Granholm, 544 U.S. at 489 (quoting

North Dakota v. United States, 495 U.S. 423, 432

(1990) (plurality)); see also Tex. Alco. Bev. Code Ann.

§ 6.030). Such systems require “that liquor pass

through a licensed in-state wholesaler” before being

sold by an in-state retailer to the ultimate consumer.

Granholm, 544 U.S. at 518 (Thomas, J., dissenting);

see also id. at 469, 489 (majority opinion) (noting

Michigan’s requirement that sales be through “in-

state wholesalers” and “in-state retailers,” and em-

phasizing that “States may... funnel sales through

the three-tier system”).

2. Petitioners are out-of-state wine retailers and

Texas wine consumers who brought suit against sev-

eral Texas state officials (the “State Defendants”) in

federal district court to challenge certain aspects of

Texas’ three-tier system and of its alcohol regulatory

scheme more generally. In the only of these claims

pressed before this Court, Petitioners challenged

Texas’ law authorizing certain in-state retailers to

deliver or ship alcoholic beverages directly to con-

sumers within the county in which the retailer is

located. Out-of-state retailers, in contrast, may not

directly ship or deliver alcohol to consumers any-

where in Texas. Petitioners contended that this

distinction was unconstitutional discrimination un-

der the dormant Commerce Clause. Respondents

Glazer’s Wholesale Drug Company, Inc. and Republic

Beverage Company (collectively, “Intervenor Defen-

dants”), licensed in-state wholesalers of alcoholic

beverages, intervened to defend the statutes.

On appeal from the District Court’s invalidation

of the challenged provision, the Fifth Circuit re-

versed. It first noted that this Court’s decision in

Granholm, which all parties agree governs this case,

invalidated “direct shipping” laws that discriminated

against out-of-state producers, not retailers. Pet.

App. 34a-35a. In contrast to the states whose laws

were struck down in Granholm, “Texas grants in-

state and out-of-state wineries the same rights.” Pet.

App. 48a (citing Tex. Alco. Bev. Code Ann. §§ 54.01-

54.12).

In considering “what else,” other than discrimi-

nation against producers, “is invalid under the

Supreme Court’s Granholm reasoning,” the Court of

Appeals observed that the three-tier system “has

been given constitutional approval.” Pet. App. 44a;

see also Granholm, 544 U.S. at 489 (quoting North

Dakota, 495 U.S. at 432). “The discrimination that

would be questionable, then, is that which is not in-

herent in the three-tier system itself.” Pet. App. 44a.

In identifying such discrimination, the court noted

that “a beginning premise is that wholesalers and

retailers may be required to be within the State.” /d.

at 48a. It then upheld in-county deliveries, such as

those permitted by Texas law, as “a constitutionally

benign incident of an acceptable three-tier system.”

Id.

The court denied Petitioners’ subsequent petition

for rehearing en banc.

REASONS FOR DENYING THE PETITION

A. There Is No Split Among the Courts of

Appeals, as Petitioners Do Not

Dispute

The petition paints the decision of the court of

appeals as “turnling] Granholm upside down,” and

asserts that it is “high time for this Court to clear up

the manifest confusion in this area.” Pet. 2, 20.

But the courts of appeals have exhibited no con-

fusion about what Granholm does and does not

prohibit. To the contrary, the few courts of appeals

that have addressed the issue to date are in complete

harmony over its meaning. Granholm prohibits dis-

crimination between in-state and_ out-of-state

producers or products, particularly insofar as that

discrimination exempts in-state producers or prod-

ucts from a State-mandated three-tier system of

alcohol distribution. See, e.g., Freeman v. Corzine,

Nos. 08-3268 & 08-3302, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS

25694 (3d Cir. Dec. 17, 2010); Arnold’s Wines, 571

F.3d at 190; Pet. App. 35a; see also Anheuser-Busch,

Inc. v. Schnorf, No. 10-cv-1601, 2010 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 91732, at *36-38 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 3, 2010). But

state laws that merely channel the distribution of

alcohol (whether in-state or out-of-state) through in-

state wholesalers and in-state retailers, including

three-tier systems, continue to be authorized under

the express terms of the Twenty-first Amendment

and various acts of Congress, and are untouched by

Granholm.

Accordingly, the petition fails on its own terms.

If the petition is right, and it turns out that lower

courts are indeed “confused” over the proper mean-

ing of Granholm, a split of authority will eventually

emerge — and the Court can consider a proper peti-

tion for certiorari at that time. But unless and until

that happens, the issue is unworthy of this Court’s

consideration, and the petition should be denied.

1. As Petitioners acknowledge, their complaint is

nearly identical to a challenge raised to New York

law and rejected by the Second Circuit. Pet. 2 (citing

Arnold’s Wines, 571 F.3d 185). As here, that case in-

volved a state law under which in-state “retailers,

but not out-of-state retailers, may deliver liquor di-

rectly to New York residents.” Arnold’s Wines, 571

F.3d at 188. New York law, like Texas law and

unlike the statutes at issue in Granholm, made “no

distinction between liquor produced in New York and

liquor produced out of the state: both may be

shipped directly to New York consumers by licensed

in-state retailers.” Jd. at 190; see also Pet. App. 43a

(“Texas grants in-state and out-of-state wineries the

same rights.”).

The Second Circuit rejected the plaintiffs’ argu-

ment that differential treatment of in-state and out-

of-state retailers warrants the same condemnation as

differential treatment of in-state and out-of-state

producers. First, the court concluded that by chal-

lenging New York’s requirement that wholesalers

and retailers be present in and licensed by the state,

the plaintiffs effectively challenged the three-tier

system itself. Arnold’s Wines, 571 F.3d at 190-91; cf.

Granholm, 544 U.S. at 469 (describing Michigan’s

three-tier system as limiting wholesaler and retailer

participation to licensed in-state entities). Because

the three-tier system has been repeatedly blessed by

this Court, the panel declined to undo it under the

guise of the dormant Commerce Clause. Granholm,

544 U.S. at 489; Arnold’s Wines, 571 F.3d at 190-91.

Second, Arnold’s Wines noted that the challenged

law, unlike the laws at issue in Granholm, did not

“create[] specific exceptions to the states’ three-tier

systems favoring in-state producers.” 571 F.3d at

191. To the contrary, “{a]lcohol sold by in-state re-

tailers directly to consumer in New York has already

passed through the first two tiers — producer and

wholesaler — and been taxed and regulated accord-

ingly.” Jd. (emphasis added). As a result, “New

York’s laws evenhandedly regulate the importation

and distribution of liquor within the state,” and do

not violate the dormant Commerce Clause. /d. at

192.

Judge Calabresi, who joined the majority opin-

ion, also wrote separately to note that, under

Granholm, courts “can only come out one way.” Ar-

nold’s Wines, 571 F.3d at 201 (Calabresi, J.,

concurring). A contrary decision, he concluded,

would “require us to ignore too much of the back-

ground jurisprudence and to extend the trend well

beyond Granholm while ignoring some of its most

specific language.” /d.

2. No other court of appeals has even addressed

a provision similar to the ones at issue in the instant

case and in Arnold’s Wines, much less created a split

with the Fifth and Second Circuits. The most analo-

gous other case — Brooks v. Vassar, 462 F.3d 341 (4th

Cir. 2006) — is fully consistent with Arnold’s Wines

and the decision below, confirming the absence of

any confusion whatsoever among the courts of ap-

peals.

In Brooks, the plaintiffs brought a dormant

Commerce Clause challenge to a state law permit-

ting consumers to “personally carry into Virginia no

more than one gallon (or four liters) of alcoholic bev-

erages for personal consumption.” Brooks, 462 F.3d

at 345 (Op. of Niemeyer, J.). In upholding the chal-

lenged statute, Judge Niemeyer explained that the

clear import of the plaintiffs’ claim was that the

statute advantaged in-state retailers (the only in-

state entities selling directly to consumers) over out-

of-state retailers. Jd. at 352. He then rejected any

“argument that compares the status of an in-state

retailer with an out-of-state retailer — or that com

pares the status of any other in-state entity under

the three-tier system with its out-of-state counter-

part — [als nothing different than an argument

challenging the three-tier system itself.” Jd. 4

3. An issue that has been addressed in the opin-

ions of, at most, three courts of appeals, and given

rise to no conflict whatsoever, is a poor candidate for

this Court’s limited docket. As addressed infra Part

B, the unanimous view is no surprise; Granholm

clearly protects the laws at issue here.

But even if Petitioners were correct that the

holdings of the courts of appeals “cannot be squared”

with Granholm, this Court’s review would still be

unwarranted. Pet. 2. If Granholm requires it, other

courts of appeals will, in time, adopt Petitioners’ po-

sition and create a split. For now, however, no such

split exists. Granholm was decided less than six

years ago; further percolation will give Petitioners,

and those sharing their interests, an opportunity to

persuade the courts of appeals of their perspective.

) r

“ The majority of the panel upheld the challenged statute

Judge Niemeyer reached this broader question in a portion of

the majority opinion not joined by the other panel members

The importance of obtaining substantial lower

court development before considering the constitu-

tionality of laws which prohibit direct shipping to

consumers by out-of-state retailers is only height

ened by the ubiquity of such laws. In the court of

appeals, the State Defendants filed as an exhibit to

their reply brief a chart, summarizing in great detail

the relevant laws governing alcoholic beverage sales

and imports in all fifty states. Based on the research

underlying that chart, the State Defendants con-

cluded that all 48 continental states, as well as

Hawaii and the District of Columbia, have adopted a

three-tier system or other laws “that favor[] both

wholesalers and retailers who have established a re-

tail outlet or distribution center somewhere in the

State over their counterparts who have not.” Reply

Br. of State Defendants 16. Moreover, the State De

fendants concluded that 28 states permit direct

shipping by retailers to consumers, but that 21 of

those states require the retailer to first establish a

retail outlet in the state. /d. at 16-17. Even in the

remaining seven states, the State Defendants stated

that “out-of-state retailers are still dramatically dis-

favored with respect to in-store sales.” /d. at 17.

The prevalence of the challenged laws, while not

guaranteeing their constitutionality, does counsel in

favor of responding cautiously to Petitioners’ invita-

tion to overturn the unanimous view of the courts of

appeals that they raise no constitutional problem.

Waiting until more courts of appeals have had the

opportunity to determine whether, in fact, Granholm

is subject to the reading Petitioners would give it be-

fore considering granting review is a proper exercise

of this caution.

B. The Decision Below Does Not Conflict

With Granholm or Any Other Opinion

of This Court

Though Petitioners cite a handful of general

dormant Commerce Clause cases, their core allega-

tion is that the decision of the court of appeals

“cannot be squared with this Court’s landmark deci-

sion in Granholm.” Pet. 2. But review of Granholm

confirms that the interpretations of that case by the

courts of appeals are not only consistent with each

other, but are also correct.*

1. In Granholm, out-of-state producers of wine

challenged Michigan and New York laws that al

lowed all wineries to sell alcohol through the States’

ordinary three-tier distribution system, but allowed

only in-state wineries to ship wine directly to con

3 Amicus Specialty Wine Retailers also claims that the deci-

sion of the court of appeals conflicts with Healy v. Beer

Institute, 491 U.S. 324 (1989), which purportedly expands the

reach of the dormant Commerce Clause beyond producers to

sellers of alcoholic beverages. Specialty Wine Retailers Br. 12-

14. But Healy addressed a statute that directly burdened inter-

state commerce, by regulating the prices charged by both in-

state and out-of-state brewers that participated in the inter-

state market. 491 U.S. at 341. The present case does not

impose any such burden on participation in interstate com-

merce, and Petitioners do not contend otherwise.

4 The constitutionality of Texas’ system is even clearer under

Granholm than a statutory scheme that, like the New York law

at issue in Arnold’s Wines, allows state-wide shipment by in-

state retailers. As the Fifth Circuit held, Texas “has not dis-

criminated among retailers” because Wine Country, which is

not located in any county of Texas, “is not similarly situated to

Texas retailers and cannot make a logical argument of dis-

crimination.” Pet. App. 47a

sumers. Granholm, 544 U.S. at 466-67. By a 5-4

vote, the Court struck down the law favoring in-state

wineries over out-of-state wineries. /d. at 476 (“Sec-

tion 2 does not allow States to regulate the direct

shipment of wine on terms that discriminate in favor

of in-state producers.”) (emphasis added).

This holding, however, raised questions about

the validity of three-tier systems themselves, which

had long served to channel the distribution of alcohol

exclusively through in-state wholesalers and in-state

retailers. See 544 U.S. at 488-89. All nine justices

agreed that such laws — including not only the three-

tier system, but also state-controlled distribution re-

gimes — would continue to be valid and untouched by

the Granholm ruling. I/d.; id. at 517 (Thomas, J.,

dissenting) (“the Twenty-first Amendment was de-

signed to remove any doubt regarding whether state

monopoly and licensing schemes violated the Com-

merce Clause, as the majority properly

acknowledges”); id. at 488-89 (“The Twenty-first

Amendment ...empowers North Dakota to require

that all liquor sold for use in the State be purchased

from a licensed in-state wholesaler.” (majority opin-

ion) (alteration in original) (quoting North Dakota,

495 U.S. at 447 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment))).

Petitioners attempt to recharacterize this pas-

sage in Granholm by contending that the Court’s

reference to the three-tier system concerns only laws

that require separation between, and forbid joint

ownership of, production, wholesale distribution, and

retail sales — and not the exclusive use of in-state

wholesalers and retailers. Pet. 13-15. But that is an

implausible reading of Granholm, for the mere sepa-

ration of these functions would not have been drawn

into question by Granholm. The entire purpose of

this passage in Granholm is to address the issue of

state laws that channel business activity through in-

state rather than out-of-state entities. The major

ity’s conclusion was simply that the

nondiscrimination principle of the dormant Com-

merce Clause would apply to the production, but not

to the distribution, of alcohol, in light of the text, his-

tory, and tradition of the Twenty-first Amendment.

Granholm, 544 U.S. at 488-89.

This Court thus restated its conclusion in unam-

biguous terms: “State policies are protected under

the Twenty-first Amendment when they treat liquor

produced out of state the same as its domestic

equivalent.” 544 U.S. at 489." Texas law does so,

and is thus protected. See Pet. App. 48a (“Texas

grants in-state and out-of-state wineries the same

rights.”); see also Arnold’s Wines, 571 F.3d at 191.

Contrary to Petitioners’ argument, Granholm’s more

general statements that the dormant Commerce

Clause prohibits discrimination against out-of-state

entities do not override this express blessing. See

Pet. App. 47a (“The dormant Commerce Clause ap-

plies [to regulation of alcoholic beverages], but it

applies differently than it does to products whose

2° In light of this unambiguous principle, Petitioners are

plainly incorrect that the distinction drawr by the courts of ap-

peals between producers and retailers with respect to

permissible regulation “has no basis in law or logic.” Pet. 3.

Granholm repeatedly limited its anal/sis to discrimination

against producers or products. E.g., Grarholm, 544 U.S. at 472

(“The mere fact of nonresidence should not foreclose a producer

in one State from access to markets in other States.”); id. at

482-486 (noting that the Webb-Kenyon Act, the Wilson Act, and

the Twenty-first Amendment did not authorize discrimination

against “out-of-state goods” or “liquor proc uced out-of-state”).

regulation is not authorized by a specific constitu-

tional amendment.”).®

2. The challenged Texas law not only complhes

with Granholm’s requirement of neutrality between

in-state and out-of-state producers and products; it

also is no more than a “constitutionally benign inci-

dent of an acceptable three-tier system.” Pet. App.

48a; see also Arnold’s Wines, 571 F.3d at 192 (prohib-

iting out-of-state retailers from shipping directly,

even if in-state retailers are allowed to do so, is “an

integral part of {a} three-tier system”).

Treating in-state and out-of-state producers dif

ferently for purposes of direct shipments “allows in-

state, but not out-of-state, wineries [i.e., producers]

to circumvent portions of the three-tier system.”

Freeman, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 25694, at *27. As

such, it is not a valid part of such a system. Jd.; Ar-

nold’s Wines, 571 F.3d at 190; Pet. App. 35a; see also

Granholm, 544 U.S. at 489 (describing three-tier

system as “unquestionably legitimate’”).

In contrast, a distinction between in-state and

out-of-state retailers is fully consistent with a three-

tier system. It permits those alcoholic beverages that

ciples without change would pose precisely the danger that the

States feared in Granholm. Specifically, the entire three-tier

system, which is based on funneling alcoholic beverages

through a separate in-state wholesaler and retailer, would be at

risk of invalidation, despite this Court’s explicit disavowal of

any intention to cause this result. Granholm, 544 U.S. at 488;

see also id, at 518 (Thomas, J., dissenting) (“[T]he three-tier

system|,| la]ls the Court concedes... is within the ambit of the

Twenty-first Amendment, even though (it) discriminates

against out-of-state interests.”).

have already passed through the state’s three-tier

system to be shipped directly to consumers, while

prohibiting alcoholic beverages that have not passed

through the in-state three-tier system from doing

so.! Arnold’s Wines, 571 F.3d at 191. This Court’s

sanctioning of three-tier systems would be hollow in-

deed if Texas were required to allow out-of-state

retailers to circumvent the system in its entirety,

while requiring in-state retailers to comply. See Pet.

App. 44a; see also Arnold’s Wines, 571 F.3d at 192

n.3.

Petitioners and their amici dispute the signifi

cance to the three-tier system of a prohibition on

direct shipments by out-of-state retailers, noting that

a handful of states have three-tier systems, yet per-

mit such shipments. Pet. 12-13; Specialty Wine

Retailers Br. 15 & n.9. Of course, there is nothing

impermissible about a State’s decision to exempt cer-

tain sales from their three-tier systems, so long as

the exemptions do not themselves discriminate

against out-of-state producers or products. But the

fact that such exceptions are permitted does not

Amicus Specialty Wine Retailers contends that out-of-state

retailers are still subject to a three-tier system; they are just

subject to “the three-tier system of the home state of the ship-

ping retailer.” Specialty Wine Retailers Br. 16. A critical part

of the three-tier system, however, is its requirement that

wholesalers and retailers be in-state, which by definition cannot

be recreated in another state.

In any event, States cannot directly or indirectly regulate

the three-tier system in the retailer’s home state, or even en-

sure that such systems remain in effect. Healy, 491 US. at

332-33. Accordingly, no State can rely on another State to im-

plement the requirements associated with its own three-tier

system.

mean that they are constitutionally required, or that

the exceptions are “fully compatible with” — as op-

posed to a limited departure from — the State’s three-

tier scheme. Specialty Wine Retailers Br. 15.

3. Petitioners’ amici attempt to bolster their

Granholm arguments with the perceived policy ad-

vantages of Petitioners’ position: widespread

«valilability of as many alcoholic products as possible,

at as low a price as possible. Specialty Wine Retail-

ers Br. 1; Economists’ Br. 12-23. But amici’s policy

goals are not necessarily shared by the States, which

have often sought exactly the opposite goals, namely

decreasing or banning access to alcohol altogether.

Granholm, 544 U.S. at 476; 44 Liquormart, Inc. v.

Rhode Island, 517 U.S. 484, 504 & n.14 (1996) (Op.

of Stevens, J.). As this Court reaffirmed in Gran-

holm, States retain the right “to ban the sale and

consumption of alcohol altogether” and to “bar its

importation .. . to make its laws effective.” Gran-

holm, 544 U.S. at 488-89. In short, “the aim of the

Twenty-first Amendment was to allow States to

maintain an effective and uniform system for control-

ling liquor by regulating its’ transportation,

importation, and use.” /d. at 484 (emphasis added).

The constitutionality of restrictions on alcohol use

cannot be judged by their efficiency in promoting the

use of alcohol.8

8 The amici Economists’ Brief, in particular, expresses dis-

taste for “state legislatures,” which “systematically

underrepresent[]” consumer interests. Economists Br. 12-17.

But the Twenty-first Amendment put authority over alcohol

squarely in the hands of the States; it did not leave to the judi-

ciary the question of what entity would best protect the

interests of consumers in regulating alcohol.

In any event, amici’s policy concerns are no dif-

ferent in degree or kind than the policy concerns

presented by every case arising under the dormant

Commerce Clause. See, e.g., Granholm, 544 U.S. at

472 (noting policy reasons underlying dormant Com-

merce Clause); Economists’ Br. 16-17 (Court should

be “vigilan(t] . . . to prevent interest-group motivated

evasions of the dormant Commerce Clause”). Even if

those concerns had resonance here, amici call for no

more than error correction tied to the specific facts of

this case. What’s more, those concerns have no reso-

nance here: Congress may immunize state laws from

dormant Commerce Clause restrictions at any time,

and it has done so here through the Twenty-first

Amendment, Webb-Kenyon Act, and other laws, just

as it has done in the insurance and other contexts.

See, e.g., Ne. Bancorp, Inc. v. Bd. of Governors of Fed.

Reserve Sys., 472 U.S. 159, 174-75 (1985) (construing

the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended,

12 U.S.C. § 1841, et seg.); Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. La.

Dep't of Ins., 62 F.3d 115, 118 (5th Cir. 1995) (con-

struing the McCarran-Ferguson Act).

C. This Case Presents An Unusually Poor

Vehicle To Address Direct Shipping Laws

Which Favor In-State Retailers

There is an additional reason not to grant certio-

rari: This case presents a uniquely poor vehicle for

resolving the question presented because the court of

appeals provided a separate and independent ration-

ale to support its conclusion.

When this suit was filed, Texas law allowed in-

state retailers with appropriate permits to ship their

alcoholic beverages statewide. Pet. App. 29a (citing

Tex. Alco. Bev. Code Ann. § 22.03 (Vernon 2006)

(amended Sept. 1, 2007)). But before the case was

decided by the District Court, the Texas Legislature

amended the governing statute to limit “the bounda-

ries of the area of permissible shipment from the

entire State to basically the county in which retailer

has a store.” Pet. App. 30a (citing Tex. Alco. Bev.

Code Ann. §§ 22.03 & 24.03 (Vernon 2009)).

The Fifth Circuit explained that Texas had not

run afoul of Granholm by allowing in-state retailer

deliveries. Pet. App. at 47a (“Granholm prohibited

discrimination against out-of-state products or pro-

ducers. Texas has not tripped over that bar by

allowing in-state retailer deliveries.”). It also noted,

however, that it need not resolve whether the “state-

wide delivery version of the provision” required dif-

ferent analysis than the challenged Texas law. Pet.

App. 46a (“We need not and do not reach the broader

definitional issue.”). Instead, the court of appeals

relied in part on its conclusion that “sales are being

made to proximate consumers, not those distant to

the store. Retailers are acting as retailers and mak-

ing what conceptually are local deliveries.” Id. at 47a

(emphasis added); see also id. at 48a (“We view local

deliveries as a constitutionally benign incident of an

acceptable three-tier system.”).

Because in-state retailers are making a type of

delivery that out-of-state retailers cannot make — £.e.,

deliveries within the same Texas county in which the

retailer is located — the court of appeals held that

“Wine Country is not similarly situated to Texas re-

tailers and cannot make a logical argument of

discrimination.” Pet. App. 47a; id. (Texas “also has

not discriminated among retailers.”). The court con-

cluded that Wine Country’s contrary argument

reflected “illogic,” as demonstrated by “the fact that

the remedy being sought in this case — allowing out-

of-state retailers to ship anywhere in Texas because

local retailers can deliver within their counties —

would grant out-of-state retailers dramatically

greater rights than Texas ones.” Pet. App. 47a.

To be sure, Respondents believe that the Fifth

Circuit properly interpreted Granholm. Its analysis

is fully consistent with Arnold’s Wines, and, in an

appropriate case, the Fifth Circuit’s reasoning would

require it to approve even Texas’ former statute. But

the Fifth Circuit was able to rely here on the nar-

rower alternative ground of upholding only the

current authorization of county-wide deliveries. <Ac-

cordingly, this Court’s review would be improper.

CONCLUSION

The petition for a writ of certiorari should be de-

nied.

Respectfully submitted.