# Opposition Brief — Wine Country Gift Baskets.com v. Steen > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386017_2770%3A3 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Opposition Brief - **Published:** January 1, 2011 - **Citation:** 562 U.S. 1270 ## 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, V. 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 2 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. 3 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. 5 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- 6 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. 7 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- 3 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 9 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. 10 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 1] 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”). 13 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 © Application of background dormant Commerce Clause prin- 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.”). 14 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. 15 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. 16 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 17 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- 18 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.