Constitutional Law - Dormant Commerce Clause - Seventh Circuit Holds That State Law Disproportionately Burdening Out-of-State Businesses Has Only Incidental Effects on Interstate Commerce

Harvard Law Review, January 2009 | Go to article overview

Constitutional Law - Dormant Commerce Clause - Seventh Circuit Holds That State Law Disproportionately Burdening Out-of-State Businesses Has Only Incidental Effects on Interstate Commerce


CONSTITUTIONAL LAW--DORMANT COMMERCE CLAUSE--SEVENTH CIRCUIT HOLDS THAT STATE LAW DISPROPORTIONATELY BURDENING OUT-OF-STATE BUSINESSES HAS ONLY INCIDENTAL EFFECTS ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE.--Baude v. Heath, 538 F.3d 608 (7th Cir. 2008).

In 2005, the Supreme Court held in Granholm v. Heald (1) that the dormant commerce clause prohibited a state from discriminating against other states by "allow[ing] in-state wineries to sell wine directly to consumers in that State but ... prohibit[ing] out-of-state wineries from doing so," whether this discrimination was by the terms of the state law or by its effect. (2) However, the Court did not settle the issue of exactly what constitutes discrimination against out-of-state producers. (3) In particular, it is unclear whether a state may require consumers to visit wineries in person before receiving direct shipments of wine, or whether such a requirement is discriminatory because it imposes disproportionate costs on wineries in distant states. While two district courts have found that these face-to-face requirements violate the dormant commerce clause, (4) other courts to consider such requirements have found them not discriminatory. (5) Recently, in Baude v. Heath, (6) the Seventh Circuit held that Indiana's face-to-face requirement did not violate the dormant commerce clause because the state's interests in revenue collection and in the prevention of underage drinking outweighed any incidental burden the law might have on interstate commerce. (7) While other courts to address the issue have reached a similar conclusion, the court's oversimplified cost-benefit analysis highlights how careless economic analysis can confuse, rather than clarify, a court's doctrinally sound opinion.

Indiana forbade direct shipment of alcohol to individuals, (8) except that a winery could apply for a "direct wine seller's permit" if it did not "hold a permit or license to wholesale alcoholic beverages issued by any authority," and had not recently distributed its wine through a wholesaler in Indiana. (9) This "prohibition against wholesale interests" effectively barred sales from wineries in states whose farm winery licenses automatically included wholesale privileges, including the major wine-producing states of California, Oregon, and Washington. (10) Moreover, wineries could ship directly only to consumers who had "provided to the seller in one ... initial face-to-face transaction at the seller's place of business" their personal information and proof of age. (11) Fine wine connoisseurs seeking access to out-of-state wines joined with a Michigan winery to challenge the Indiana regime.

The Southern District of Indiana held that both provisions violated the dormant commerce clause. (12) The court explained that the dormant commerce clause does not protect out-of-state businesses from natural disadvantages caused by geography, but only "forbids states from stripping out-of-state businesses of competitive advantages they have earned." (13) The wholesale interest prohibition violated this constitutional restriction by functioning as a discriminatory "concrete barrier" to bar ninety-three percent of all American-produced wine. (14) Because Indiana did not demonstrate that the prohibition was effective at or necessary to the protection of the state's three-tier alcohol distribution system, the court held it invalid. (15) The court went on to find that the face-to-face requirement, although "less obviously discriminatory," (16) had the overall practical effect of disproportionately burdening out-of-state wineries, and was thus also discriminatory per se. (17) Finding that the state could have used less burdensome methods to prevent underage drinking, the court held that the face-to-face requirement could not withstand heightened scrutiny. (18)

The Seventh Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. (19) Writing for the unanimous panel, Chief Judge Easterbrook (20) set out an analytical framework for assessing a state law affecting interstate commerce. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Constitutional Law - Dormant Commerce Clause - Seventh Circuit Holds That State Law Disproportionately Burdening Out-of-State Businesses Has Only Incidental Effects on Interstate Commerce
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Help
Full screen

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    Buy instant access to save your work.

    Already a member? Log in now.

    Author Advanced search

    Oops!

    An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.