Arizona misses out on wines from retailers from other states
Wine retailers are showing disappointment over a recent court endorsement that supports a "discriminatory shipping law" in Arizona. The post Arizona misses out on wines from retailers from other states appeared first on The Drinks Business.
Wine retailers are showing disappointment over a recent court endorsement that supports a "discriminatory shipping law" in Arizona.
According to the National Association of Wine Retailers (NAWR), there is “disappointment” from its members over the decision of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upholding Arizona’s discriminatory law banning consumers from receiving wine shipments from out-of-state wine retailers.
The NAWR has said that, as a result of this decision, a circuit split now exists over how courts determine if a state alcohol law unconstitutionally discriminates against interstate commerce.
While the state of Arizona allows its own wine retailers to ship wine to Arizona residents, however it bans the same form of commerce by out-of-state retailers. This ban leaves Arizonans without access to hundreds of thousands of wines available from retailers in other states, but purportedly reduces the tax coffers of Arizona, and interferes with interstate commerce.
With this ruling, Arizona consumers have lamented that they “remain stuck with very limited access to rare, collectible, and small-production wines from around the world” that the state’s retailers can’t obtain from local wholesalers.
Dealing this week, NAWR executive director Tom Wark explained: “What we have now is a genuine circuit split that should be heard before the Supreme Court of the United States.”
Wark noted: “We hope that the high court will once again address the issue of wine shipping, which we believe will lead to an outcome prohibiting discriminatory laws such as Arizona’s.”
The decision from the 9th Circuit joins previous rulings in the 8th Circuit and the 4th Circuit where the courts are said to have determined state laws don’t discriminate when requiring out-of-state retailers to set up brick-and-mortar establishments in the state in order to ship wine to the state’s residents.
Meanwhile, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals and the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals has determined states must justify such in-state requirements with concrete evidence that discrimination is necessary to advance the health and safety interests of the state.
The 9th Circuit’s decision has "ultimately placed the integrity of the archaic 'Three-Tier System' above the interests of consumers,” added Wark.
According to the National Association of Wine Retailers (NAWR), there is “disappointment” from its members over the decision of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upholding Arizona’s discriminatory law banning consumers from receiving wine shipments from out-of-state wine retailers.
The NAWR has said that, as a result of this decision, a circuit split now exists over how courts determine if a state alcohol law unconstitutionally discriminates against interstate commerce.
While the state of Arizona allows its own wine retailers to ship wine to Arizona residents, however it bans the same form of commerce by out-of-state retailers. This ban leaves Arizonans without access to hundreds of thousands of wines available from retailers in other states, but purportedly reduces the tax coffers of Arizona, and interferes with interstate commerce.
With this ruling, Arizona consumers have lamented that they “remain stuck with very limited access to rare, collectible, and small-production wines from around the world” that the state’s retailers can’t obtain from local wholesalers.
Dealing this week, NAWR executive director Tom Wark explained: “What we have now is a genuine circuit split that should be heard before the Supreme Court of the United States.”
Wark noted: “We hope that the high court will once again address the issue of wine shipping, which we believe will lead to an outcome prohibiting discriminatory laws such as Arizona’s.”
The decision from the 9th Circuit joins previous rulings in the 8th Circuit and the 4th Circuit where the courts are said to have determined state laws don’t discriminate when requiring out-of-state retailers to set up brick-and-mortar establishments in the state in order to ship wine to the state’s residents.
Meanwhile, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals and the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals has determined states must justify such in-state requirements with concrete evidence that discrimination is necessary to advance the health and safety interests of the state.
The 9th Circuit’s decision has "ultimately placed the integrity of the archaic 'Three-Tier System' above the interests of consumers,” added Wark. 
