Retailers win one, lose one in Texas court

Judge Sidney Fitzwater of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas handed down a very important decision on Monday. In the Siesta Village Market Opinion, Judge Fitzwater said the following

The court concludes that Texas’ ban on the sale and shipment of wine by out-of-state retailers to Texas residents is unconstitutional, but it also holds that the requirement that wine retailers——including out-of-state retailers——first purchase such wine from Texas-licensed wholesalers is constitutional.

We’ll have much more to say about this case in the future, but this opinion is important because, for the first time, Judge Fitzwater said effectively that the principals of Granholm v. Heald should apply not only to wine producers, but also to wine retailers. In other words, just as Texas must treat in-state and out-of-state wineries evenhandedly, it must also treat in-state and out-of-state retailers evenhandedly. The following sentence in the opinion highlights this claim.

Because the retailer-plaintiffs and in-state wine retailers are engaged in the same business——the sale of wine to retail consumers——and seek access to the same market——Texas consumers——they are potential competitors and are therefore similarly situated for purposes of dormant Commerce Clause analysis.

Unfortunately for retailers, the good news also came with a new twist. The decision upheld the constitutionality of the Texas requirement that both in-state and out-of-state retailers that wish to ship to Texas consumers first purchase the wine from a wholesaler licensed in the state of Texas. A California wine retailer, therefore, must first purchase wine from a licensed Texas wholesaler before shipping it to Texas consumers. Tom Wark, Executive Director of the Specialty Wine Retailers Association, had the following to say about the new twist.

Not only is it illegal under California law and other state’s law, but I believe it’s illegal under Texas law, Wark said. We won on everything but there’s that little unfortunate part the judge got wrong. I feel sorry for Lou Bright (who heads the Texas ABC). How is he going to implement this?

Prior to this decision, the parties had agreed to a preliminary injunction that allowed out-of-state retailers to ship wine into Texas without a permit. We’ll now wait for administrative guidance from the Texas ABC. In parallel, the decision will likely be appealed.

Click here to read the full Siesta Market Opinion

1 Comment

  1. R. Corbin Houchins

    It’s even more complicated than that.

    The case upholds the basic Specialty Wine Retailers contention that a state that allows its retailers to deliver to consumers must permit direct shipment by out-of-state retailers. It also has some important things to say about the meaning of Granholm’s less pellucid passages. In particular, it attempts to deal with the most significant internal tension of the Granholm majority opinion, viz., the difficulty of squaring the holding of the opinion, that states cannot require out-of-state wineries to become residents as a condition to reaching local markets, with a dictum-within-a-dictum quoted from a 1990 Supreme Court case, North Dakota v. United States, to the effect that the 21st Amendment empowers states “to require that all liquor sold for use in the State be purchased from a licensed in-state wholesaler.” (For an explanation of the difference between holdings and dicta, see
    The Siesta Village decision and its implications merit further discussion, in particular on the following points:

    1. Texas had a “citizenship” requirement of at least a year’s residence in the state for most licenses. It had already been declared unconstitutional when applied to newly arriving wholesalers with physical premises within the state. Siesta Village goes farther by analyzing the statute as a location requirement and holding it unconstitutional on Commerce Clause grounds, to the extent it prevented issuance of the requisite retailing licenses to out-of-state retailers.

    2. The Siesta Village judge takes Granholm as a location parity case, and his opinion is explicit that physical presence requirements “plainly discriminate against interstate commerce.” However, like every analyst of Granholm, he had to deal with a key question posed by the quotation from North Dakota, noted above: If a state has the right to require all wine to “be purchased from a licensed in-state wholesaler,” how does one give effect to the Commerce Clause policy against location discrimination? One way of resolving the issue is to require the state to accept methods of consummating the purchase requirement that do not substantially burden interstate commerce relative to local, such as running the sale through the local middle tier without requiring the wine to take an economically disadvantageous logistical path when sold by an out-of-state retailer. Another is to declare that the quotation is dicta and therefore not binding in applying the Granholm holding to a different chain of distribution where its effect on commerce is more problematic –rather too bold a departure to expect in a district court opinion. In the event, the judge simply let the contradiction lie, holding that the retailers have to comply with Texas laws requiring a state retail license and purchase from a Texas-licensed wholesaler, a deferral that has been described as a ticket to the next round of litigation. Meanwhile, the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission has informally commented that it is not their problem.

    3. Experts disagree on the extent to which Granholm was a “weak record case” that could have gone the other way had the states made a better showing of regulatory problems, for example in tax collection and averting deliveries to underage recipients. Siesta Village takes the opposite view, and granted summary judgment, which means the court decided Texas failed to show substantial likelihood that, if it were afforded a full hearing, it would present evidence on which a judgment in its favor could be based. To win in a direct discrimination case a state would have to show there is no reasonable alternative to discrimination for achieving legiti-mate regulatory objectives. The court reads Granholm to say that the availability of licensing and modern communications makes such an argument inherently im-plausible, and comes close to saying a state can never prevail on the proposition that interstate delivery is more likely to cause underage drinking than intrastate delivery.

    4. Another point of controversy among lawyers is whether the Commerce Clause is indifferent to whether a court cures discrimination by leveling up or down. Siesta Village takes the side of those who argue that it makes no sense to level down in enforcing a constitutional provision intended to encourage interstate trade, at least in the absence of a clear legislative statement requiring termination of in-state privileges in case of invalidity of interstate prohibition. In constitutional law terms, the Siesta Village judge may have discovered a penumbra to the Commerce Clause that would prevent courts from taking such simplistic approaches as counting the number of lines of statutory text that would have to be rewritten and picking the smaller revision.

    5. Although Siesta Village rejected the wholesalers’ strange argument that the discrimination arose not from Texas’s intent, but from the happenstance of the plaintiffs’ locations, it indulged in dicta indicating states can adopt on-site-only laws, in which case the “accident of geography,” and not state discrimination, would be responsible for excluding remote sellers. It appeared to accept the reasoning that because there is no “direct shipment market” in those states, the remote sellers are not excluded from anything by the prohibition, which is arguably a flawed argument under the Commerce Clause, whose policy extends to disproportionate burden as well as overt discrimination.

    Appeals seem likely. Meanwhile, the parties in Knightsbridge Wine Shoppe, LTD v. Jolly, who agreed to extend Granholm, at least temporarily, to non-producing retailers selling to California consumers, will presumably take up their cudgels on application of the Siesta Village analysis, versus that of the New York case, Arnold’s Wines, Inc. v. Boyle on September 9, 2007. In Arnold’s Wines, the New York federal district court dismissed a retailer suit without an evidentiary hearing, on the grounds that the state had a 21st Amendment right to require all sales to go through an in-state wholesaler, a proposition suggested by the vexing dictum in the Granholm opinion.

    The Arnold’s Wines decision seems to miss Granholm’s point that a state may have the right to require all wine to go through three tiers, but does not have the right to apply its rule with location discrimination unless it provides evidence that its discrimination against interstate sellers is required by a legitimate state objective that cannot be achieved through nondiscriminatory means. The Siesta Village judge expressly declined to follow Arnold’s Wines, which it plausibly characterized as putting the 21st Amendment above the Commerce Clause, precisely what Granholm forbids.


Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *