In a nutshell, the U.S. Supreme Court adopted the old Wall Street adage that “bulls make money, bears make money and hogs get slaughter.”
It was clear from the first paragraph that Justice Alito, who wrote for the majority, thought Tennessee’s requirements for a retail license were absurd: Two years’ residency for an initial license, 10 years residency to renew the initial license (which expired before the 10 years were up), and for a corporation, all directors, officers and shareholders must live in the state. “In practice,” Alito noted drily, “this means no corporation whose stock is publicly traded may operated a liquor store in the state.”
In its decision, the Supreme Court noted that “removing state trade barriers was a principal reason for adoption of the Constitution. Under the Articles of Confederation, states notoriously obstructed the interstate shipment of goods.”
The opinion did a deep analysis of the 21st Amendment and rejected the idea that section of the amendment lets a state do whatever it pleases. “Reading ยง2 to prohibit the transportation or importation of alcoholic beverages in violation of any (emphasis in original) state law would lead to absurd results that the provision cannot have been meant to produce.”
“This would mean, among other things, that a state law prohibiting the importation of alcohol for sale to persons of a particular race, religion, or sex would be immunized from challenge under the Equal Protection Clause. Similarly, if a state law prohibited the importation of alcohol for sale by proprietors who had expressed an unpopular point of view on an important public issue, the First Amendment would provide no protection. If a State imposed a duty on the importation of foreign wine or spirits, the Import-Export Clause would have to give way. If a state law retroactively made it a crime to have bought or sold imported alcohol under specified conditions, the Ex Post Facto Clause would provide no barrier to conviction. The list goes on,” the court said.
The court noted that Section 2 of the 21st Amendment was intended to allow those states that wanted to remain dry, to remain dry.
With regard to the Tennessee statute, the Court says the residency requirement “could not be sustained if it applied across the board to all those seeking to operate any retail business in the State.” But alcohol is different, the court agrees, so it looks at whether the requirement can be justified as a public health or safety measure or on some other legitimate ground. “At best,” the court says, the provision has “a highly attenuated relationship to public health or safety.”
Indeed, the public health and safety argument “is implausible on its face,” the court finds.