New York's Protectionist Spirits Shipping Law Challenged As Discriminatory
The discriminatory System is working exactly as planned and shoud be destroyed
When consumers are barred from obtaining the alcohol product they want, when alcohol producers are barred from getting their products into the hands of the consumers who want them, and when the middlemen wholesalers tell lawmakers exactly what the law will be, the system is working exactly as planned.
Take, for example, New York State. New York distilleries have the right to ship their whiskeys, gins, and vodkas across the state and into the homes of New York consumers. However, that right to ship spirits to New York consumers is only extended to out-of-state distillers if their state laws allow New York distillers to ship spirits to consumers there. It’s called “reciprocity” or reciprocal shipping laws.
Reciprocal laws like this were deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court back in 1976 when the Mississippi reciprocal law on milk imports was shot down.
Regarding alcohol, the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in Granholm v Heald addressed reciprocity laws when it wrote:
“The rule prohibiting state discrimination against interstate commerce follows also from the principle that States should not be compelled to negotiate with each other regarding favored or disfavored status for their own citizens. States do not need, and may not attempt, to negotiate with other States regarding their mutual economic interests.”
New York State lawmakers knew about the unconstitutionality of reciprocity laws when they passed their distiller shipping law last year. I know they did because I spoke with the legislative aide of the sponsor of the bill and outlined why it was unconstitutional. They were unconcerned.
One reason they were unconcerned is that New York’s wine shipping law has had a reciprocity provision since it was adopted in 2005 after the Granholm decision. Since then, it has not been challenged.
Yesterday, someone challenged New York.