About us Melchionna PLLC represents and assists North American and European business clients in achieving their goals with sound legal advice and innovative solutions to current...
Luca CM Melchionna, Esq., Principal Luca CM Melchionna has 25+ years of experience in both private practice and academia, in Italy and in the United States. He is a...
Mission Melchionna PLLC’s mission is to provide outstanding legal services and tax advice. We focus on building a relationship with each client to truly understand their needs and...
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...
On October 9, 2018 the City and State of New York introduced and enforced an in-depth protocol regarding the prevention, investigation and sanction of sexual harassment in the...
Restricted stocks conferred to employees, that is stocks that employees can transfer after vesting, are subject to certain tax rules that distinguish them from granted or fully...
In South Dakota v. Wayfair et al., (585 U.S. ___, 2018) the Supreme Court of the United State has overturned a precedent previously established in Qill Corp. V. North Dakota...
In Pacific Management Group et al. v. Commissioner (T.C. Memo 2018-131), the Tax Court has established that a reorganization with the intent of postponing tax payments on a flow...
The most recently published data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) prove the strength of the American economy, with a GDP that shows a growth of 3.2% in the third...
The National Defense Authorization Act, introduced for the 2019 fiscal year, has updated and broadened the powers of the Commission on Foreign Investments in the United States...
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 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), aimed at reducing the US’s federal tax burdens, came into effect on January 1, 2018. The most important aspects of the TCJA concern the reduction...
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 determine whether Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 57-3-203 and 57-3-204 (“Statute”) is unconstitutional. The statute requires individuals to reside within the state for two years before the Tennessee’s Alcoholic Beverage Commission (“TABC”) can grant them a license to sell alcoholic beverages. Additionally, in order to renew a license, Statute requires an individual to have resided in the state for 10 years. Corporations seeking a license are subject to similar requirements for their officers and shareholders. TABC had not enforced the Statute in the 6 years prior to this case.
While the 21st Amendment gives states authority to regulate the “transportation or importation” of “intoxicating liquors,” its scope was limited by the 2005 decision in Granholm v. Heald (544 U. S. 460 (2005)). The majority opinion in Granholm ruled that states cannot discriminate against out-of-state wineries because doing so would violate the US Constitution’s Commerce Clause.
Nonetheless, the petitioner, Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Association (“the Association”), argues that the 21st Amendment gives Tennessee “virtually complete control” over the sale of alcohol within its borders provided it does not impede interstate commerce (e.g. discriminating against out-of-state products or regulating activities out-of-state). Further, the Association argues the residency requirements are a matter of “legislative judgement,” as Statute “increases the odds that liquor retailers will sell responsibly.”
The respondent, Tennessee Fine Wines and Spirits, LLC (“Fine Wines”), argues that residency requirements serve to protect in-state retailers from competition. They say that the Court has long upheld the position that interstate commerce flow freely and that the petitioner’s arguments to the contrary are “misguided.”
Tennessee’s durational residency requirements fundamentally prohibit the flow of interstate commerce and deny out-of-state retailers market access. The Association’s claim to broad regulatory authority over the sale of alcohol seems not well-defined and to contradicts core principles of the U.S. Constitution. Alternatively, Fine Wines’ argument allows the 21st Amendment to coexist alongside the Constitution’s Commerce and Privileges and Immunities Clauses.
It will be interesting to see if this Supreme Court sustains Granholm or allows Tennessee’s protectionist policies to be confirmed.
The information provided here does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice but simply information for general purposes only and may not be the most up to date. Use of our website or any of its links or resources do not create an attorney-client relationship between the reader, user, or browser and the law firm. The views expressed at, or through, this site are those of the individual authors writing in their individual capacities only.