Smokey and the Bandit in Cyberspace: The Dormant Commerce Clause, the Twenty-first Amendment, and State Regulation of Internet Alcohol Sales

Brannon P. Denning
{"title":"Smokey and the Bandit in Cyberspace: The Dormant Commerce Clause, the Twenty-first Amendment, and State Regulation of Internet Alcohol Sales","authors":"Brannon P. Denning","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.265122","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Recently, federal courts have used the dormant Commerce Clause doctrine to strike down state regulations of alcohol sales, as applied to out-of-state alcohol producers and purchasers, despite the text of the Twenty-first Amendment, which appears to authorize such state regulation. This article argues that in striking down state regulations, these courts have ignored constitutional text, evinced indifference to the history of the Twenty-first Amendment, and misapplied Supreme Court precedent. In sum, they have come close to effecting a virtual repeal of the Amendment. But, I argue, there is opportunity in this new wave of litigation - opportunity to repair the erosion of state power under the Amendment caused by years of parsimonious interpretation by the U.S. Supreme Court and carried further by the recent decisions. In this essay, I do three things. First, I summarize the history of the framing and ratification of the Twenty-first Amendment, and demonstrate that its purposes were understood to go well beyond merely allowing states to pursue temperance policies. Second, I chart the evolution of the Supreme Court's Twenty-first Amendment jurisprudence, and describe the Court's move from rules to standards in applying the Amendment, which has resulted in a dramatic reduction of state power over alcohol. Finally, I critique the recent district court decisions that limit states in the one area in which their power remained largely unquestioned by the Supreme Court - the regulation of liquor imports from out-of-state. By way of conclusion, I offer suggestions to lower courts and to the Supreme Court for properly applying the Amendment in future cases.","PeriodicalId":81001,"journal":{"name":"Constitutional commentary","volume":"33 1","pages":"297-343"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2001-12-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Constitutional commentary","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.265122","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Recently, federal courts have used the dormant Commerce Clause doctrine to strike down state regulations of alcohol sales, as applied to out-of-state alcohol producers and purchasers, despite the text of the Twenty-first Amendment, which appears to authorize such state regulation. This article argues that in striking down state regulations, these courts have ignored constitutional text, evinced indifference to the history of the Twenty-first Amendment, and misapplied Supreme Court precedent. In sum, they have come close to effecting a virtual repeal of the Amendment. But, I argue, there is opportunity in this new wave of litigation - opportunity to repair the erosion of state power under the Amendment caused by years of parsimonious interpretation by the U.S. Supreme Court and carried further by the recent decisions. In this essay, I do three things. First, I summarize the history of the framing and ratification of the Twenty-first Amendment, and demonstrate that its purposes were understood to go well beyond merely allowing states to pursue temperance policies. Second, I chart the evolution of the Supreme Court's Twenty-first Amendment jurisprudence, and describe the Court's move from rules to standards in applying the Amendment, which has resulted in a dramatic reduction of state power over alcohol. Finally, I critique the recent district court decisions that limit states in the one area in which their power remained largely unquestioned by the Supreme Court - the regulation of liquor imports from out-of-state. By way of conclusion, I offer suggestions to lower courts and to the Supreme Court for properly applying the Amendment in future cases.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
烟鬼和网络空间的强盗:休眠商业条款,第二十一修正案,以及国家对网络酒精销售的监管
最近,联邦法院利用休眠的商业条款原则推翻了适用于州外酒精生产商和购买者的州酒精销售法规,尽管《第二十一修正案》的文本似乎授权了这种州法规。本文认为,在推翻州法规时,这些法院忽视了宪法文本,对《第二十一修正案》的历史漠不关心,并误用了最高法院的先例。总而言之,他们已经接近于实质上废除该修正案。但是,我认为,在这一新的诉讼浪潮中有机会——有机会修复修正案对国家权力的侵蚀,这是由美国最高法院多年来吝啬的解释造成的,并由最近的决定进一步推动。在这篇文章中,我做了三件事。首先,我总结了第21修正案的制定和批准的历史,并证明其目的被理解为远远超出了仅仅允许各州实施禁酒政策。其次,我描绘了最高法院第21修正案判例的演变,并描述了法院在适用修正案时从规则到标准的转变,这导致了国家对酒精的权力的大幅减少。最后,我批评最近地区法院的判决,这些判决限制了各州在一个领域的权力基本上没有受到最高法院的质疑——从州外进口酒类的监管。作为结论,我向下级法院和最高法院提出建议,以便在今后的案件中适当地适用修正案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Reality Principle The Constitutional Marriage of Personality and Impersonality: Office, Honor, and the Oath Originalist Theory and Precedent: A Public Meaning Approach Taking Legitimacy Seriously: A Return to Deontology Family Reunification and the Security State
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1