If wine retailers want to ship across state lines direct to consumers, you’d think the retailers would pony up the $5,000 it will cost to write and file a “Friend of the Court” Amicus brief in the upcoming Byrd v Tennessee (Docket # 18-96) U.S. Supreme Court case.
But the wine retailers won’t be paying the bill. Instead, they expect consumers to foot the entire $5,000 cost. The amicus brief will argue that state-based anti-consumer bans on wine shipping are not only unconstitutional but significantly harm consumers.
Organized by Wine Freedom and the National Association of Wine Retailers, the Amicus brief will be written by attorneys Robert Epstein and Professor Alex Tanford, both of whom were intimately involved in bringing and winning the groundbreaking Granholm v Heald Supreme Court case in 2005 that led to numerous states allowing winery-to-consumer shipments.
Epstein and Tanford have filed a number of federal court cases challenging bans on consumers receiving shipments from out-of-state wine retailers and wine-of-the-month clubs, including a recent case in Michigan federal court that determined Michigan’s retailer wine shipping ban was unconstitutional.
Although Byrd v Tennessee is directly about how long a wine retailer must live in Tennessee to get a license, Tom Wark, president, National Association of Wine Retailers says it is also very likely to answer whether the same non-discrimination principles outlined in the 2005 Granholm v Heald Supreme Court case also apply to wine retailers.
Numerous states have laws in effect that allow consumers to receive wine shipments from in-state wine stores, but bar consumers from receiving wine shipments from out-of-state wine retailers, wine-of-the-month clubs and wine auction houses. As a result, most wine consumers in America have access to only a small minority of the wines available nationwide.
The first 50 contributors of $50 or more will see their names attached to the brief and all funders will receive an electronic copy of the final brief. All funds raised will go directly toward the funding of the amicus brief.