Missouri Residency Law Triumphs Over Direct-Shipping Retailer

Heath Cordes, a Florida resident who operates Sarasota Wine Market and does business as Magnum Wine & Tastings, wanted to do business in Missouri, but was stopped by a provision of Missouri’s Liquor Control Law requires the managing officer of a corporation seeking a liquor license to be a Missouri resident.

Cordes sued, alleging the requirement was unconstitutional because it allows in-state retailers to ship wine to Missouri consumers while prohibiting out-of-state retailers.

He lost for the same reasons the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t decide the gerrymandering case this week – he failed to meet the threshold requirement of showing he had suffered an actual injury, not a hypothetical one.

Magnum Wine made no allegations of an economic loss, actual or imminent.  “Magnum Wine’s pleadings about its inability to obtain a Missouri retailer license are meaningless absent an associated loss,” the court said.

The ruling also noted that, “to allow out-of-state retailers to ship directly to Missouri residents would not only burden in-state retailers, who would have to operate within the . . . system while out-of-state retailers could circumvent the Missouri regulatory system entirely, it would also violate the Twenty-first Amendment by undermining Missouri’s ‘unquestionably legitimate’ system.”

Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America praised the decision.

“For more than eight decades the Twenty-first Amendment has given states the right to regulate alcohol and oversee licensees as the primary regulatory authority,” WSWA President and CEO Craig Wolf said.

“This ruling reaffirms the legitimacy of state regulatory authority under the Twenty-first Amendment and the benefits provided by the three-tier system, including efficient tax collection, protection against tainted and counterfeit alcohol, a balanced marketplace and the widest choice of beverage alcohol products available anywhere in the world today,” Wolf added.

While the court did dismiss the complaint, it also allowed the defendant to file an amended complaint no later than June 25.

This entry was posted in Litigation and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.