FAMILY WINEMAKERS OF CALIFORNIA, STEPHEN J. POOR, III, M.D., GERALD C. LEADER, Plaintiffs, Appellees, v. EDDIE J. JENKINS, in his official capacity as Chairman of the Massachusetts Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission; ROBERT H. CRONIN and SUSAN CORCORAN, in their official capacities as Associate Commissioners of the Massachusetts Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission, Defendants, Appellants., 592 F.3d 1

Summary

The advantages afforded to "small" wineries by the expanded distribution options in Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 138, § 19F, bore little relation to the market challenges caused by size. Section 19F's statutory context, legislative history, and other factors also yielded an unavoidable conclusion that the discrimination was purposeful. Nor did § 19F serve any legitimate local purpose that could be furthered by a nondiscriminatory alternative. "Large" wineries -- all located outside Massachusetts and accounting for 98 percent of all United States wine -- could not distribute directly to consumers unless they did not distribute to retailers. But "small" wineries could simultaneously distribute through wholesalers, direct to retailers, and ship direct to consumers. The Wilson Act of 1890, 27 U.S.C.S. § 121, and the Webb-Kenyon Act of 1913, 27 U.S.C.S. § 122, did not protect facially neutral state liquor laws from Commerce Clause invalidation if they were discriminatory. The Twenty-first Amendment ...