This post follows up on an earlier post written about the same case. Tennessee law imposes a residency requirement on individuals (and companies) wishing to operate retail liquor...
Roughly 1/3 of all food produced globally is wasted (1.3 billion tons). Every year Industrialized countries waste $680 billion worth of food, and Americans alone $161 billion....
Food allergen labeling requirements in the EU and USA are similar in principle as they are meant to reach the same results: adequately inform consumers, protect their health, and...
Businesses in Arkansas will no longer be able to market their cauliflower-based rice substitute as “cauliflower rice” due to the state’s new “truth in labeling” law. Act 501 makes...
Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Association v. Thomas, (SCOTUS Docket No. 18-96), whose US Supreme Court Decision is set to be announced in June 2019, asks the Justices to...
The FDA has recently finalized some regulations regarding the Drug Supply Chain Security Act (DSCSA). The goal is to help companies that operate in the pharmaceutical industry...
The FSMA gives the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) authority to regulate food grown, harvested, or processed in the US or elsewhere. The FDA has the duty to better protect...
According to the most recent data, nearly two third of United States population is reportedly overweight or obese. However, there is a growing segment of the population which is...
This post follows up on an earlier post written about the same case.
Tennessee law imposes a residency requirement on individuals (and companies) wishing to operate retail liquor stores in TN, requiring applicants to have resided for the prior 2 years (for a new license), or 10 years (for a renewal); and if the applicant is a corporation, all its shareholders must reside in TN.
In a 7-2 decision released on June 26th, the Supreme Court ruled this Tennessee law is unconstitutional according to the Commerce Clause. The decision is a win for liquor companies and consumers, who will no longer be subject to state protectionist policies (supported by the Tennessee Wine and Spirit Retailer Association)..
In its opinion, the Court concluded that “far from granting the States plenary authority to adopt domestic regulations, the Court’s police-power precedents required an examination of the actual purpose and effect of a challenged law.” Thus, the Court “reject[s] the Association’s overly broad understanding” of the 21st Amendment, which the Association argued gives states “virtually limitless authority” to regulate liquor.
In practice, the Court’s decision means that state legislation may not impede interstate liquor trade unless the statute has a “demonstrable connection” to “public health and safety effects of alcohol use and to serve other legitimate interests.” It should be noted, however, that this decision does not affect intrastate trade.
You can read the entire opinion here.