Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Assn. v. Thomas
Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Association v. Thomas, No. 18-96, 588 U.S. 504 (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case which held that Tennessee's two-year durational-residency requirement applicable to retail liquor store license applicants violated the Commerce Clause (Dormant Commerce Clause) and was not authorized by the Twenty-first Amendment.[1][2][3]
| Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Association v. Thomas | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued January 16, 2019 Decided June 26, 2019 | |
| Full case name | Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Association v. Russell F. Thomas, Executive Director of the Tennessee Alcoholic Beverage Commission, et al. |
| Docket no. | 18-96 |
| Citations | 588 U.S. 504 (more) 139 S. Ct. 2449; 204 L. Ed. 2d 801 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Partial summary judgment granted, Byrd v. Tenn. Wine & Spirits Retailers Ass'n, 259 F. Supp. 3d 785 (M.D. Tenn. 2017); affirmed, Byrd v. Tenn. Wine & Spirits Retailers Ass'n, 883 F. Supp. 3d 608 (6th Cir. 2018) |
| Holding | |
| Tennessee's two-year durational-residency requirement applicable to retail liquor store license applicants violates the Commerce Clause and is not authorized by the Twenty-first Amendment | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Alito, joined by Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Kavanaugh |
| Dissent | Gorsuch, joined by Thomas |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 3 | |
Background
editThe state of Tennessee imposed a series of durational-residency requirements on all people and businesses seeking to obtain or renew a license to operate a liquor store. This included a two-year durational-residency requirement for applicants of initial licenses. Total Wine & More applied to open a store in Knoxville, Tennessee which the state intended to approve based on the state Attorney General's opinion that the residency requirements were unenforceable. The trade group representing existing retailers sued the state to prevent approval.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit struck down all of the provisions as violations of the Commerce Clause. Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Association petitioned the ruling pertaining to the two-year residency requirement. Case was heard by the Supreme Court of the United States.
Issue
editDoes Tennessee's two-year residency requirement for the obtaining of a liquor license violate the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution?
Ruling
editThe Court applies the principle known as the "Dormant Commerce Clause" or "negative Commerce Clause" which prohibits state laws that unduly restrict interstate commerce. The Court upheld the 6th Circuit ruling, striking down the two-year provision as unconstitutional.
References
edit- ^ Sibilla, Nick (June 27, 2019). "Supreme Court Strikes Down Tennessee Liquor License That "Blatantly Favors" In-State Businesses". Forbes.
- ^ Weiss, Debra Cassens (June 26, 2019). "Supreme Court strikes down residency requirement for Tennessee liquor retailers". ABA Journal.
- ^ Liptak, Adam (June 26, 2019). "Supreme Court Strikes Down Tennessee Liquor Law". The New York Times.
External links
edit- Text of Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Association v. Thomas, No. 18-96, 588 U.S. ___ (2019) is available from: Cornell Google Scholar Justia Oyez (oral argument audio) Supreme Court (slip opinion)
- Case page at SCOTUSblog
 | This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |