Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
No. In the Supreme Court of the United States SARASOTA WINE MARKET, LLC, et al., Petitioners, v. ERIC S. SCHMITT, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI, et al., Respondents. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI James A. Tanford (Counsel of Record) Robert D. Epstein James Porter Joseph Beutel Epstein Cohen Seif & Porter 50 S. Meridian St, Ste 505 Indianapolis IN 46204 [email protected] (812) 332-4966 Counsel for Petitioners. i QUESTION PRESENTED In a long line of cases, this Court has repeatedly held that the states’ Twenty-first Amendment authority to regulate the distribution of alcohol is limited by the nondiscrimination principle of the Commerce Clause. Tenn. Wine & Spirits Retailers Ass’n v. Thomas, 139 S.Ct. 2449, 2470 (2019); Granholm v. Heald, 544 U.S. 460, 487 (2005); Healy v. Beer Inst., 491 U.S. 324, 342 (1989); Bacchus Ltd. v. Dias, 468 U.S. 263, 276 (1984). Departing from these precedents, the Eighth Circuit held that Missouri’s law prohibiting out-of-state wine retailers from participating in its online market was protected by the Amendment and immune from Commerce Clause scrutiny because physical presence in a state is an inherent prerequisite to effective regulation. The question, upon which the lower courts disagree, is: When considering both the Twenty-first Amend- ment and the Commerce Clause, may Missouri ban out-of-state wine retailers from participating in its online market when nondiscriminatory alternatives are available that would serve its regulatory interests? ii PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS Petitioners are Sarasota Wine Market, LLC, d/b/a Magnum Wine and Tastings, Heath Cordes, Michael Schlueter and Terrance French. They were Plaintiffs- Appellants below. Respondents are Eric S. Schmitt, Attorney General of Missouri, Dorothy Taylor, Supervisor of the Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control, and Michael L. Parson, Governor of Missouri, in their official capacities. They were Defendants-Appellees below. CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Petitioner Sarasota Wine Market, LLC, has no parent corporation and there is no publicly held company that owns 10% or more of its stock. RELATED PROCEEDINGS Sarasota Wine Market, LLC v. Parson, No. 4:17-cv- 02792, U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. Judgment entered March 29, 2019. Sarasota Wine Market, LLC v. Schmitt, No. 19-1948, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Judgment entered February 16, 2021. Rehearing denied March 24, 2021. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES . iv OPINIONS BELOW . 1 JURISDICTION . 1 CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS . 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE. 2 REASON FOR GRANTING THE PETITION: The Eighth Circuit decision conflicts with cases from this Court and other circuits . 4 CONCLUSION . 9 APPENDIX A. Opinion of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, February 16, 2021 . 1a APPENDIX B. Opinion of the District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, March 29, 2019. 26a APPENDIX C. Order of the Eighth Circuit denying rehearing, March 24, 2021 . 43a APPENDIX D. Relevant provisions of the Missouri Liquor Control Act, MO. REV. STAT. ch. 311. 44a iv TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES: Anvar v. Tanner, 1:19-cv-00523 (D.R.I.) . 9 Arnold’s Wines, Inc. v. Boyle, 571 F.3d 185 (2d Cir.2009) . 6 B-21 Wines, Inc. v. Guy, 3:20-cv-00099 (W.D.N.C.) . 9 Bacchus Ltd. v. Dias, 468 U.S. 263 (1984) . 4, 5 Bernstein v. Graziano, 2:19-cv-14716 (D.N.J.) . 9 Block v. Canepa, 2:2–cv-03686 (S.D.Oh.) . 9 Brooks v. Vassar, 462 F.3d 341 (4th Cir.2006) . 6 Byrd v. Tenn. Wine & Spirits Retailers Assoc., 883 F.3d 608 (6th Cir.2018) . 7 Chicago Wine Co. v. Holcomb, 1:19-cv-02785 (S.D. Ind.) . 9 Cooper v. Tex. Alcoholic Beverage Comm'n, 820 F.3d 730 (5th Cir.2016) . 7 Granholm v. Heald, 544 U.S. 460 (2005) . passim Healy v. Beer Inst., 491 U.S. 324 (1989) . 4 Lebamoff Enterpr., Inc. v. O’Connell, No. 1:16-cv- 08607 (N.D. Ill.) . 8 Lebamoff Enterpr., Inc. v. Rauner, 909 F.3d 847 (7th Cir. 2018) . 7 Lebamoff Enterpr., Inc. v. Whitmer, 956 F.3d 863 (6th Cir. 2020) . 7 v Peoples Super Liquor Stores, Inc. v. Jenkins, 432 F.Supp.2d 200 (D. Mass. 2006) . 7 Sarasota Wine Market, LLC v. Parson, 381 F.Supp. 3d 1094 (E.D. Mo. 2019) . 3 Sarasota Wine Market, LLC v. Schmitt, 987 F.3d 863 (8th Cir. 2021) . 4, 5 Siesta Vill. Mkt., LLC v. Granholm, 596 F.Supp.2d 1035 (E.D. Mich. 2008) . 7 Southern Wine & Spirits of Am., Inc. v. Div. of Alco. & Tobacco Control, 731 F.3d 799 (8th Cir.2013) . 3, 4, 6 Tannins of Indianapolis, LLC v. Taylor, 3:19-cv- 00504 (W.D. Ky.) . 9 Tenn. Wine & Spirits Retailers Ass’n v. Thomas, 139 S.Ct 2449 (2019) . passim CONSTITUTIONS, STATUTES AND RULES: U.S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 3, . passim U.S. Const., Amend. XXI, § 2 . passim 28 U.S.C. § 1331 . 3 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . 3 Mo. Rev. Stat. § 311.050 . 2 Mo. Rev. Stat. § 311.060 . 2 NY Assembly Bill A00895, https://nyassembly. gov/leg/?default_fld=&leg_video=&bn=A00895& term=2021&Summary=Y&Text=Y . 8 vi MISCELLANEOUS: Dave McIntyre, Buying wine online is another pandemic-era shift that’s poised to stick around, WASH. POST (MAY 14, 2021); https://www.wash ingtonpost.com/food/2021/05/14/online-wine- buying-trends/ . 8 Nat’l Ass’n of Wine Retailers, Lessons from the New Hampshire wine shipping debacle, https://nawr. org/ lessons-from-the-new-hampshire-wine- shipping-debacle/ . 8 Charles Riley, Online shopping has been turbocharged by the pandemic. There’s no going back, CNN BUSINESS (October 13, 2020), https:// www.cnn.com/2020/10/11/investing/stocks-week- ahead/index.html . 8 Lucas Roh, How best to adapt your business when the world is moving online, FORBES (June 1, 2020), https:// www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/ 2020/06/01/how-to-best-adapt-your-business-when -the-world-is-moving-online/?sh=3888672f7b9e . 9 Unif. Law Comm’n, June Report (2019), https:// www.uniformlaws.org/viewdocument/2019-june- report-to-scope-and-pro . 9 1 PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OPINIONS BELOW This petition seeks review of the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in Sarasota Wine Market, LLC v. Schmitt, (App., infra, 1a-25a), reported at 987 F.3d 1171. The opinion and order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (App., infra, 26a-42a), is reported at 381 F.Supp. 3d 1094. JURISDICTION The opinion of the court of appeals was entered on February 16, 2021. A petition for rehearing was denied on March 24, 2021 (App., infra, 43a). This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1) to hear this case by Writ of Certiorari. CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED A. The Commerce Clause, U.S. CONST., Art. I, § 8, cl. 3: The Congress shall have Power... To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes. B. The 21st Amendment, U.S. CONST., Amend. XXI, § 2: The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited. C. MO. REV. STAT. §§ 311.050, 311060: Reprinted in the Appendix, infra, 44a. 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This case challenges the constitutionality of Missouri’s law that prohibits out-of-state wine retailers from participating in its online market. Only Missouri citizens can get retailer licenses, and only in-state retailers may take internet orders and ship wine to consumers. MO. REV. STAT. §§ 311.050, 311.060(1), (App. infra 44a). This difference in treatment violates the Commerce Clause because it discriminates against interstate commerce and protects local businesses from competition. It is not saved by the Twenty-first Amendment because the ban advances no state interest that could not be served by non- discriminatory alternatives. In Granholm v. Heald, 544 U.S. 460 (2005), this Court declared unconstitutional two state laws that prohibited out-of-state wineries from shipping to consumers but allowed in-state wineries to do so. The Court said that the nondiscrimination principle of the Commerce Clause applies to state liquor laws, so that if a State chooses to allow the direct shipment of wine, it must do so on evenhanded terms. Id. at 492-93. In the sixteen years since then, forty-four states have modernized their beverage laws to allow both in-state and out-of-state wineries to sell and ship to consumers. The states have been slower to modernize their laws to allow retailers other than wineries to sell wine online and ship it to consumers. Thirteen states now permit both in-state and out-of-state wine retailers to sell online, but many others have repeated the patterns that existed before Granholm. They have begun allowing in-state retailers to ship to consumers while 3 continuing to prohibit out-of-state retailers from doing so. Missouri is one of those states. Petitioners brought this action in 2017 in the Eastern District of Missouri under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to challenge Missouri’s discriminatory retailer shipping laws. It is one of a dozen similar cases filed around the country asking the courts to declare unconstitutional state laws that allow in-state, but not out-of-state, retailers to sell online and ship to consumers.