7 ms·

The title is a little (not a lot) misleading: Wines Are No Longer Free to Travel Across State Lines Later in the article, it points out that There’s no juri

The title is a little (not a lot) misleading: Wines Are No Longer Free to Travel Across State Lines Later in the article, it points out that There’s no jurisdiction for retailers at the federal level. No law was enacted at midnight last night. Instead, 14 states including CA + DC allow importation across state lines. Moreover, the laws in the other states only apply to retailers and not to vineyards (Granholm v. Heald). The change seems to have been that UPS and FedEx are now enforcing this in the other 36 states. Maybe this is a better title: In Some States, Wines Can't Be Bought From Out Of State Retailers

dceddia 9y ago
From here[0], the 14 states that are allowed (plus CA and DC): Alaska, California, Idaho, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, Virginia, Washington, D.C., West Virginia, and Wyoming [0]: http://people.com/food/wine-shipping-laws-crackdown/ http://people.com/food/wine-shipping-laws-crackdown/
- ojbyrne 9y ago
  Also listed in the posted article (at the bottom).
- uiri 9y ago
  As a resident of Seattle, it took be a minute to register that "Washington" in that list is part of DC.
  - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
    Style note: when crafting lists whose members include commas, a semicolon is the preferred delimiter. For example, we could amend the above to "... Virginia; Washington, D.C.; West Virginia..."
    - marcoperaza 9y ago
      In this case, I’d prefer “D.C.” or “the District of Columbia”, to avoid both the ambiguity of the original and the awkwardness of using semicolons.
      - peterwwillis 9y ago
        It's also (imho) more stylistically correct to not mention Washington. The District of Columbia was originally called 'The Territory of Columbia' as a Federal District, and the 'City of Washington' as a name for the Federal City. So technically there was both a city and district designation, and the city designation still exists as it was redefined in the 1871 Organic Act. I think the reason people say "Washington, D.C." when referring to it in a list of states is that it sounds less weird than the unabbreviated "District of Columbia".
        Dylan16807 9y ago
        Or just don't put in a comma.
        peterwwillis 9y ago
        That would be incorrect grammar, like saying "St. Louis Missouri" instead of "St. Louis, Missouri".
        rtpg 9y ago
        Would there be a strong argument for simply saying Columbia? After all, context will mostly clear up which one you mean, and we tend to not say "State of Wisconsin" very often.
        throwanem 9y ago
        You would confuse a big chunk of the East Coast, where "Columbia" means a city in Maryland southwest of Baltimore. If you're looking for something totally unambiguous, you can say just "DC". If you're the New York Times and likewise, you could say "the District of Columbia", but apparently their style guide prefers otherwise.
SeanLuke 9y ago
I don't understand. How is this not a straightforward violation of the Interstate Commerce Clause?
- mikeash 9y ago
  The 21st Amendment (which repealed prohibition) explicitly grants states the right to regulate alcohol imports and possession.
  - avar 9y ago
    Even if that weren't the case, it says: [The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; I.e. not that the Federal government must regulate interstate commerce, merely that it has the power to do that, and even if it said that the commerce must be regulated it could still be regulated to the effect that you couldn't e.g. sell across state lines. But yes, the reason the regulation is different for alcohol than for other goods is ostensibly the 21st.
    - jayess 9y ago
      But also see "dormant commerce clause."
      - sandworm101 9y ago
        I spy a law student. The DCC is the stuff of conlaw nightmares.
    - mikeash 9y ago
      I’m not sure what you’re saying here. It’s not that the feds must somehow regulate interstate commerce, it’s that the states can’t. The 21st carves out an exception.
      - avar 9y ago
        I'm pointing out that the states forbidding commerce across state lines is not a violation of the commerce clause per-se. Rather it's a violation of how the federal government has chosen to use the rights it's granted by the commerce clause. I.e. it's just the academic point that it's not inevitable that the Federal government uses the power of the CC to enforce free trade between states, that's just how it's chosen to implement it. I.e. there could be an alternate timeline of the US where the CC enforces the ability of individual states to impose interstate tariffs up to some threshold, similar to how the EU manages agriculture quotas within the single market.
walshemj 9y ago
So the vineyard can truck its goods across state lines? seems bonkers to me
- twoodfin 9y ago
  Only if a state allows for direct shipments from in-state wineries. The effect of Granholm was to forbid states from using the 21st Amendment to discriminate against out-of-state producers.
mitchty 9y ago
Does this mean I can't buy sake through the mail now if i'm in one of those stupid 36 states?
- busterarm 9y ago
  Yes. There's a mead producer I'm fond out in North Carolina and I haven't been able to get their bottles shipped to NY for some time. To get around that, I'd been shipping them to my mom's in South Carolina and we've been making exchanges whenever one of us visits the other. That's not an option anymore and my only route will now have to be a 2 hour drive from her house whenever I visit there (since she's not going to be making that drive...). It's not like there's great distribution of mead here, even though this is NYC. Consumers lose this round, I guess. What I can do at least is form a relationship with a local store/distributor and have them place a prepaid, minimum case (likely minimum 6 case) order at a time, with whatever huge markup they decide to add for doing nothing more than being legally able to place the order.
  - chiph 9y ago
    I have an interesting NC/SC story - There's a discount wine/liquor store right across the state line from the Carowinds amusement park (in Charlotte). People from North Carolina were driving down and loading up (which is different from "getting loaded"...) their cars to save some money. The NC Alcoholic Beverage Control Board took exception to this (loss of tax revenue, possible blue-law violations, etc.) and sent one of their officers down there. He sat in the parking lot and would radio the license plates of cars with North Carolina tags that he observed buying large quantities of booze on to a team of agents waiting on I-77. Who would then pull the buyers over and charge them with bootlegging. The South Carolina Highway Patrol got wind of this and sent several officers to the parking lot to explain to the North Carolina revenuer the concept of jurisdiction, and how he was out of his.
    - huehehue 9y ago
      The fact that interstate bootlegging is something that even exists blows my mind. Feels like the states are all part of the same system until you hit stuff like archaic blue laws, marijuana laws, abortion laws, auto insurance, and (recently) gay marriage. Those are all important things, and it's pretty frustrating not to have the same rights in some states as I do in others. I'm surprised (but glad) there aren't state border crossing stops yet. This is small stuff like getting wine and fireworks across state lines, I can't begin to imagine how someone who needs an abortion must feel about it.

dceddia 9y ago

From here[0], the 14 states that are allowed (plus CA and DC): Alaska, California, Idaho, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, Virginia, Washington, D.C., West Virginia, and Wyoming [0]: http://people.com/food/wine-shipping-laws-crackdown/ http://people.com/food/wine-shipping-laws-crackdown/

ojbyrne 9y ago
Also listed in the posted article (at the bottom).
uiri 9y ago
As a resident of Seattle, it took be a minute to register that "Washington" in that list is part of DC.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  Style note: when crafting lists whose members include commas, a semicolon is the preferred delimiter. For example, we could amend the above to "... Virginia; Washington, D.C.; West Virginia..."
  - marcoperaza 9y ago
    In this case, I’d prefer “D.C.” or “the District of Columbia”, to avoid both the ambiguity of the original and the awkwardness of using semicolons.
    - peterwwillis 9y ago
      It's also (imho) more stylistically correct to not mention Washington. The District of Columbia was originally called 'The Territory of Columbia' as a Federal District, and the 'City of Washington' as a name for the Federal City. So technically there was both a city and district designation, and the city designation still exists as it was redefined in the 1871 Organic Act. I think the reason people say "Washington, D.C." when referring to it in a list of states is that it sounds less weird than the unabbreviated "District of Columbia".
      - Dylan16807 9y ago
        Or just don't put in a comma.
        peterwwillis 9y ago
        That would be incorrect grammar, like saying "St. Louis Missouri" instead of "St. Louis, Missouri".
      - rtpg 9y ago
        Would there be a strong argument for simply saying Columbia? After all, context will mostly clear up which one you mean, and we tend to not say "State of Wisconsin" very often.
        throwanem 9y ago
        You would confuse a big chunk of the East Coast, where "Columbia" means a city in Maryland southwest of Baltimore. If you're looking for something totally unambiguous, you can say just "DC". If you're the New York Times and likewise, you could say "the District of Columbia", but apparently their style guide prefers otherwise.

SeanLuke 9y ago

I don't understand. How is this not a straightforward violation of the Interstate Commerce Clause?

mikeash 9y ago
The 21st Amendment (which repealed prohibition) explicitly grants states the right to regulate alcohol imports and possession.
- avar 9y ago
  Even if that weren't the case, it says: [The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; I.e. not that the Federal government must regulate interstate commerce, merely that it has the power to do that, and even if it said that the commerce must be regulated it could still be regulated to the effect that you couldn't e.g. sell across state lines. But yes, the reason the regulation is different for alcohol than for other goods is ostensibly the 21st.
  - jayess 9y ago
    But also see "dormant commerce clause."
    - sandworm101 9y ago
      I spy a law student. The DCC is the stuff of conlaw nightmares.
  - mikeash 9y ago
    I’m not sure what you’re saying here. It’s not that the feds must somehow regulate interstate commerce, it’s that the states can’t. The 21st carves out an exception.
    - avar 9y ago
      I'm pointing out that the states forbidding commerce across state lines is not a violation of the commerce clause per-se. Rather it's a violation of how the federal government has chosen to use the rights it's granted by the commerce clause. I.e. it's just the academic point that it's not inevitable that the Federal government uses the power of the CC to enforce free trade between states, that's just how it's chosen to implement it. I.e. there could be an alternate timeline of the US where the CC enforces the ability of individual states to impose interstate tariffs up to some threshold, similar to how the EU manages agriculture quotas within the single market.

walshemj 9y ago

So the vineyard can truck its goods across state lines? seems bonkers to me

twoodfin 9y ago
Only if a state allows for direct shipments from in-state wineries. The effect of Granholm was to forbid states from using the 21st Amendment to discriminate against out-of-state producers.

mitchty 9y ago

Does this mean I can't buy sake through the mail now if i'm in one of those stupid 36 states?

busterarm 9y ago
Yes. There's a mead producer I'm fond out in North Carolina and I haven't been able to get their bottles shipped to NY for some time. To get around that, I'd been shipping them to my mom's in South Carolina and we've been making exchanges whenever one of us visits the other. That's not an option anymore and my only route will now have to be a 2 hour drive from her house whenever I visit there (since she's not going to be making that drive...). It's not like there's great distribution of mead here, even though this is NYC. Consumers lose this round, I guess. What I can do at least is form a relationship with a local store/distributor and have them place a prepaid, minimum case (likely minimum 6 case) order at a time, with whatever huge markup they decide to add for doing nothing more than being legally able to place the order.
- chiph 9y ago
  I have an interesting NC/SC story - There's a discount wine/liquor store right across the state line from the Carowinds amusement park (in Charlotte). People from North Carolina were driving down and loading up (which is different from "getting loaded"...) their cars to save some money. The NC Alcoholic Beverage Control Board took exception to this (loss of tax revenue, possible blue-law violations, etc.) and sent one of their officers down there. He sat in the parking lot and would radio the license plates of cars with North Carolina tags that he observed buying large quantities of booze on to a team of agents waiting on I-77. Who would then pull the buyers over and charge them with bootlegging. The South Carolina Highway Patrol got wind of this and sent several officers to the parking lot to explain to the North Carolina revenuer the concept of jurisdiction, and how he was out of his.
  - huehehue 9y ago
    The fact that interstate bootlegging is something that even exists blows my mind. Feels like the states are all part of the same system until you hit stuff like archaic blue laws, marijuana laws, abortion laws, auto insurance, and (recently) gay marriage. Those are all important things, and it's pretty frustrating not to have the same rights in some states as I do in others. I'm surprised (but glad) there aren't state border crossing stops yet. This is small stuff like getting wine and fireworks across state lines, I can't begin to imagine how someone who needs an abortion must feel about it.