The U.S. Supreme Court case Tennessee Wine & Spirits Retailers Association v. Thomas, 2018, revolved around a challenge to the constitutionality of a Tennessee law that required individuals to reside in the state for two years before obtaining a license to sell alcohol and ten years for renewal of such licenses. The plaintiffs argued this violated the Commerce Clause of the Constitution by discriminating against out-of-state economic interests. The defendants contended it was protected under Section 2 of the Twenty-first Amendment which allows states to regulate liquor sales within their borders as they see fit. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, stating that while states have broad power under Section 2, it does not allow them to violate "the non-discrimination principle" inherent in the Commerce Clause without sufficient justification related directly with public health or safety concerns associated with alcohol consumption or production - something Tennessee failed to provide evidence for.

The dissenting opinion in the Tennessee Wine & Spirits Retailers Association v. Thomas case argued that states should have the right to regulate liquor sales within their borders without interference from federal courts or Congress. The dissent, led by Justice Gorsuch, emphasized a respect for state sovereignty and believed that the 21st Amendment gave states broad powers to regulate alcohol as they see fit. They disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Section 2 of this amendment, arguing it was intended to return control over alcohol regulation entirely back to individual states after Prohibition ended. Therefore, they felt Tennessee's two-year residency requirement for liquor store licenses did not violate any constitutional principles but rather reflected its own legitimate policy choices about how best to oversee an industry fraught with public health and safety implications.