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.