Indianapolis Brewing Co v. Liquor Control Commission of State of Michigan
Decision Date | 03 January 1939 |
Docket Number | No. 130,130 |
Citation | 305 U.S. 391,83 L.Ed. 243,59 S.Ct. 254 |
Parties | INDIANAPOLIS BREWING CO., Inc., v. LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION OF STATE OF MICHIGAN et al |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Michigan.
Messrs. Thomas F. O'Mara, of Terre Haute, Ind., and Herbert J. Patrick, of Indianapolis, Ind., for appellant.
Mr. Raymond W. Starr, of Grand Rapids, Mich., for appellees.
Indianapolis Brewing Company, Inc., an Indiana corporation, manufactures beer in that State. Under appropriate licenses it has for some years sold and shipped to dealers in Michigan its product in interstate commerce. In July, 1937, the Michigan Liquor Control Act was amended so as to prohibit Michigan dealers in beer from selling any beer manufactured in a state which by its laws discriminates against Michigan beer. By Section 40 of the amended Act, the Michigan Commission is directed to declare what states discriminate as that term is defined by the Act.1 It named ten states.2 Among these is In diana, which by its Liquor Control Act of 1935, as amended in 1937, prohibits licensed Indiana wholesalers from importing any beer which is not their absolute property; and requires that in order to secure the privilege of importing beer from other states each must obtain a 'port of entry' permit, of which no fewer than ten and no more than one hundred are to be granted, pay a license fee of $1500 and give a bond of $10,000, in addition to the license fee and bond required of those who sell only Indiana beer.3
The Indianapolis Company, suing on behalf of itself and others similarly situated, brought, in the federal court for eastern Michigan, this suit to enjoin the enforcement of that provision of the Michigan law on the ground that it violates the Federal Constitution. The members of the Michigan Liquor Control Commission and other officers of the State were made defendants. As a temporary, as well as a permanent, injunction was sought, a three-judge court was conveened to hear the application for a temporary injunction. Defendants moved to dismiss the bill. It was conceded that if the law was unconstitutional the plaintiff was entitled to equitable relief. No question except that of the constitutionality of the law was presented. The court held the law valid; denied the temporary injunction; and dismissed the bill. 21 F.Supp. 969.
The plaintiff contends that although the Twenty-First Amendment, U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 21, declares: 'The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited', the Michigan law should be held void as violating the commerce clause and the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, § 8, cl. 3; Amend. 14. It characterizes the law as 'retaliatory'; argues, among other things, that the Amendment may not be interpreted as permitting retaliation; and insists that such interpretation would defeat its purpose, as thereby Michigan would be allowed to punish Indiana for doing what, under the rule applied in State Board of Equalization v. Young's Market Co., 299 U.S. 59, 63, 57 S.Ct. 77, 78, 81 L.Ed. 38, is permitted. Whether the Michigan law should not more properly be described as a protective measure, we have no occasion to consider. For whatever its character, the law is valid. Since the Twentyfirst Amendment,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Goldstein v. Miller
...have been unconstitutional * * * as a direct burden on interstate commerce * * *." See Indianapolis Brewing Co. v. Liquor Control Commission, 305 U.S. 391, 394, 59 S.Ct. 254, 255, 83 L.Ed. 243 (1939), in which Mr. Justice Brandeis held that Michigan, pursuant to the Twenty-first Amendment, ......
-
Tenn. Wine & Spirits Retailers Ass'n v. Thomas
...; Mahoney v. Joseph Triner Corp. , 304 U.S. 401, 403, 58 S.Ct. 952, 82 L.Ed. 1424 (1938) ; Indianapolis Brewing Co. v. Liquor Control Comm’n , 305 U.S. 391, 394, 59 S.Ct. 254, 83 L.Ed. 243 (1939). The Court went so far as to assume that the Fourteenth Amendment imposed no barrier to state l......
-
Tiq Bacchus Imports, Ltd v. Dias, 82-1565
...L.Ed. 128 (1939); Finch & Co. v. McKittrick, 305 U.S. 395, 59 S.Ct. 256, 83 L.Ed. 246 (1939); Indianapolis Brewing Co. v. Liquor Control Comm'n, 305 U.S. 391, 59 S.Ct. 254, 83 L.Ed. 243 (1939); Mahoney v. Joseph Triner Corp., 304 U.S. 401, 58 S.Ct. 952, 82 L.Ed. 1424 (1938); State Board of ......
-
Carter v. Commonwealth of Virginia Dickerson v. Same
...Constitutional policy. Ziffrin, Inc. v. Reeves, 308 U.S. 132, 60 S.Ct. 163, 84 L.Ed. 128; Indianapolis Brewing Co. v. Liquor Control Commission, 305 U.S. 391, 59 S.Ct. 254, 83 L.Ed. 243; State Board of Equalization of California v. Young's Market Co., 299 U.S. 59, 57 S.Ct. 77, 81 L.Ed. What......
-
Old whine in a new battle: pragmatic approaches to balancing the Twenty-First Amendment, the dormant commerce clause, and the direct shipping of wine.
...(14.) Dickerson v. Bailey, 212 F. Supp. 2d 673, 678 (S.D. Tex. 2002). (15.) See, e.g., Indianapolis Brewing Co. v. Liquor Control Comm'n, 305 U.S. 391, 394 (1939) (holding the right to prohibit or regulate the importation of intoxicating liquor is not limited by the Commerce Clause); Ziffre......
-
Discarding the North Dakota dictum: an argument for strict scrutiny of the three-tier distribution system.
...the Commerce Clause on their powers over such transportation or importation." (citing Indianapolis Brewing Co. v. Liquor Control Comm'n, 305 U.S. 391 (1939), abrogated by Granholm, 544 U.S. 460, and Young's Mkt., 299 U.S. (127.) Id. at 137-38. (128.) Young's Mkt., 299 U.S. at 60-61. (129.) ......
-
Missouri's Hangover: Wine-ing about Direct-to-Consumer Prohibition: Sarasota Wine Mkt., LLC v. Schmitt.
...(76) See id. (77) Id. (78) See Mahoney v. Joseph Triner Corp., 304 U.S. 401 (1938); Indianapolis Brewing Co. v. Liquor Control Comm'n, 305 U.S. 391 (1939) (holding that the Dormant Commerce Clause does not limit the right of a state to regulate the importation of liquor even when faced with......
-
ENDING THE FEDERAL CANNABIS PROHIBITION: LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE HISTORY OF ALCOHOL REGULATIONS, TWENTY-FIRST AMENDMENT, AND DORMANT COMMERCE CLAUSE JURISPRUDENCE.
...Market, 299 U.S. at 62; Mahoney v. Joseph Triner Corp., 304 U.S. 401, 403 (1938); Indianapolis Brewing Co. v. Liquor Control Comm'n, 305 U.S. 391, 394 (163.) Young's Market, 299 U.S. at 77 ("A classification recognized by the Twenty-first Amendment cannot be deemed forbidden by the Fourteen......