Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot. Click to learn more!

Tennessee Wine & Spirits Retailers Association v. Byrd

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Supreme Court of the United States
Tennessee Wine & Spirits Retailers Association v. Byrd
Term: 2018
Important Dates
Argument: January 16, 2019
Decided: June 26, 2019
Outcome
Affirmed
Vote
7-2
Majority
Chief Justice John G. Roberts • Ruth Bader Ginsburg • Stephen Breyer • Samuel Alito • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Brett Kavanaugh
Dissenting
Neil Gorsuch • Clarence Thomas


Tennessee Wine & Spirits Retailers Association v. Byrd is a case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on January 16, 2019, during the court's 2018-2019 term. The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit.[1]

On June 26, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 7-2 opinion that affirmed the 6th Circuit's ruling. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion. Justice Neil Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas. Click here for more information about the opinion.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: The Tennessee Alcoholic Beverage Commission (TABC) deferred voting on two liquor license applications due to state residency requirements for obtaining a liquor license. The Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Association told the TABC that it would likely file suit in representation of the two businesses in question. The state attorney general then filed an action seeking a declaratory judgment on whether the residency rules were constitutional.
  • The issue: Whether the Twenty-first Amendment empowers States, consistent with the dormant Commerce Clause, to regulate liquor sales by granting retail or wholesale licenses only to individuals or entities that have resided in-state for a specified time.[2]
  • The outcome: On June 26, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 7-2 opinion that affirmed the 6th Circuit's ruling, holding that "because Tennessee’s 2-year residency requirement for retail license applicants blatantly favors the State’s residents and has little relationship to public health and safety, it is unconstitutional."[3]


    • You can review the lower court's opinion here.[4]

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    • June 26, 2019: The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the 6th Circuit's ruling.
    • January 16, 2019: Oral argument
    • September 27, 2018: U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear case
    • July 20, 2018: Petition filed with U.S. Supreme Court
    • February 21, 2018: The Sixth Circuit Court affirmed the lower court's ruling that the residency requirements were unconstitutional.

    Background

    The Tennessee Alcoholic Beverage Commission (TABC) deferred voting on two liquor license applications due to state residency requirements for obtaining a liquor license. Tenn. Code Ann. § 404(b)–(d) required entities seeking a liquor license to have been a Tennessee resident for two years immediately prior to seeking the license. It also required those seeking license renewals to have been a resident for 10 years.[5]

    The Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Association told the TABC that it would likely file suit in representation of the two businesses in question. The state attorney general then filed an action seeking a declaratory judgment on whether the residency rules were constitutional.[5]

    The United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee found that the durational-residency requirements violated the dormant Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The 6th Circuit Court agreed: "For the reasons discussed below, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment declaring § 57-3-204(b)(2)(A), (3)(A)–(B), and (3)(D) in violation of the dormant Commerce Clause and SEVER those provisions from the Tennessee statute."[4]

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[2]

    Questions presented:
    • Whether the Twenty-first Amendment empowers States, consistent with the dormant Commerce Clause, to regulate liquor sales by granting retail or wholesale licenses only to individuals or entities that have resided in-state for a specified time.

    Outcome

    On June 26, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 7-2 opinion that affirmed the 6th Circuit's ruling. The court held the two-year state's two-year durational-residency requirement for retail liquor license applicants was unconstitutional.[3]

    Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion. Justice Neil Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas.

    Opinion

    In his opinion, Justice Alito wrote:[3]

    “ Section 2 [of the 21st Amendment] was adopted as part of the scheme that ended prohibition on the national level. It gives each State leeway in choosing the alcohol-related public health and safety measures that its citizens find desirable. But §2 is not a license to impose all manner of protectionist restrictions on commerce in alcoholic beverages. Because Tennessee’s 2-year residency requirement for retail license applicants blatantly favors the State’s residents and has little relationship to public health and safety, it is unconstitutional.[6] ”

    Dissenting opinion

    In his dissent, Justice Gorsuch wrote:[3]

    “ Over time, the people have adopted two separate constitutional Amendments to adjust and then readjust alcohol’s role in our society. But through it all, one thing has always held true: States may impose residency requirements on those who seek to sell alcohol within their borders to ensure that retailers comply with local laws and norms. In fact, States have enacted residency requirements for at least 150 years, and the Tennessee law at issue before us has stood since 1939. Today and for the first time, the Court claims to have discovered a duty and power to strike down laws like these as unconstitutional. Respectfully, I do not see it.[6] ”

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    Audio

    • Audio of oral argument:[7]

    Transcript

    • Read the oral argument transcript here.

    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "18-96 Tennessee Wine & Spirits Retailers Association v. Byrd," accessed November 16, 2018
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "QPReport 18-96 Tennessee Wine & Spirits Retailers Association v. Byrd," accessed November 16, 2018
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 Supreme Court of the United States, Tennessee Wine & Spirits Retailers Association v. Byrd, decided June 26, 2019
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 SCOTUSblog, "Tennessee Wine & Spirits Retailers Association v. Byrd," accessed November 16, 2018
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 Oyez, "Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Association v. Byrd," accessed November 16, 2018
    6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    7. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Tennessee Wine & Spirits Retailers Association v. Byrd, argued January 16, 2019
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Tennessee_Wine_%26_Spirits_Retailers_Association_v._Byrd&oldid=9117300"