Term: 2004
Docket: 03-1116
Jennifer M. Granholm, Governor Of Michigan, Et Al. v. Eleanor Heald, Et Al.
- Pro
03-1116 GRANHOLM V. HEALD DECISION BELOW: 342 F3d 517 CONSOLIDATED WITH 03-1120 AND 03-1274 FOR ONE HOUR ORAL ARGUMENT. CERT. GRANTED 5/24/2004 QUESTION PRESENTED: Under state law, the Michigan Liquor Control Commission generally bans out-of- state direct shipment of alcoholic liquor to consumers' doorsteps, but permits in- state licensed wineries to direct ship to consumers, and out-of-state wineries to import through in-state licensed wholesalers. Out-of-state wineries may also petition the State Liquor Control Commission for an order permitting them to ship wine directly to consumers in the State. Any denial of such a request may be appealed through the State court system. Section 2 of the 21st Amendment to the United States Constitution expressly prohibits importation of alcoholic beverages into any state for delivery or use, in violation of the laws of the State. The Court of Appeals declared Michigan's alcoholic liquor importation law facially unconstitutional in violation of the Commerce Clause. The question presented is: Does Michigan's regulation of the importation of beverage alcohol under the 21st Amendment facially violate the Commerce Clause when it permits in-state licensed wineries to directly ship alcohol to consumers, but requires out-of-state wineries to import its products through licensed in-state wholesalers and to sell its products through licensed retailers or request permission of the Liquor Control Commission to bypass this distribution system and ship directly to consumers? LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 01-2720
The U.S. Supreme Court case Jennifer M. Granholm, Governor of Michigan, et al. v. Eleanor Heald, et al., 2004 dealt with the issue of interstate wine sales and whether states could discriminate against out-of-state wineries in favor of local ones under the Commerce Clause and Twenty-first Amendment to the United States Constitution. The court ruled 5-4 that laws in New York and Michigan which allowed only in-state wineries to ship directly to consumers were unconstitutional as they violated the Commerce Clause by discriminating against interstate commerce without advancing a legitimate state purpose beyond economic protectionism for local businesses. This ruling opened up direct-to-consumer shipping across state lines for all wineries.
In the dissenting opinion for Granholm v. Heald, Justice Clarence Thomas argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with the original understanding of the Commerce Clause and 21st Amendment. He contended that states have a constitutional right to regulate alcohol sales within their borders without interference from Congress or federal courts. According to him, Michigan and New York’s laws were not discriminatory because they treated all wine producers equally; both in-state and out-of-state wineries could sell directly to consumers if they established a physical presence in those states. Therefore, he believed these laws did not violate the Commerce Clause as it only prohibits state regulations that favor in-state businesses over out-of-state ones but does not guarantee any business an absolute right to trade across state lines free from local regulation.
