Mahoney v. Joseph Triner Corporation
| Decision Date | 23 May 1938 |
| Docket Number | No. 761,761 |
| Citation | 82 L.Ed. 1424,304 U.S. 401,58 S.Ct. 952 |
| Parties | MAHONEY, Liquor Control Commissioner, v. JOSEPH TRINER CORPORATION |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
On appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Minnesota.
Messrs. Wm. S. Ervin and Roy C. Frank, both of St. Paul, Minn., for appellant.
Mr. Carl W. Cummins, of St. Paul, Minn., for appellee.
Section 2 of the Twenty-First Amendment to the Federal Constitution, U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 21, § 2, provides:
'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 adoption of the Amendment was proclaimed December 5, 1933. In February, 1934, Joseph Triner Corporation, an Illinois corporatin engaged there in the manufacture of intoxicating liquors, complied with the Minnesota foreign corporations law; secured from the Liquor Control Commissioner a license to sell such liquors within Minnesota at wholesale; and thereafter carried on in that State the business of selling to retailers liquors manufactured by it in Illinois. The Legislature of Minnesota enacted chapter 390, approved April 29, 1935, which provides:
'No licensed manufacturer or wholesaler shall import any brand or brands of intoxicating liquors containing more than 25 per cent of alcohol by volume ready for sale without further processing unless such brand or brands shall be duly registered in the patent office of the United States.'
The business of Joseph Triner Corporation in Minnesota included selling many brands of liquors containing more than 25 per cent. of alcohol which had not been registered in the Patent Office; and at the time of the enactment of the statute it had there a stock of such liquors. To enjoin the Liquor Control Commissioner of Minnesota from interfering with the business, it brought this suit in the federal court for that State; alleged that the statute of 1935 violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitu- tion, U.S.C.A.Const.Amend. 14, § 1; alleged danger of irreparable injury; and sought both a preliminary and a permanent injunction. The several state officials charged with the duty of enforcing the statute were joined as defendants.
The case was heard by three judges under section 266 of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C.A. § 380. The court, holding that it had both federal and equity jurisdiction, granted a preliminary injunction, Joseph Triner Corp. v. Arundel, D.C., 11 F.Supp. 145; and later a permanent injunction, Joseph Triner Corp. v. Mahoney, D.C., 20 F.Supp. 1019. The state officials appealed to this Court. The sole contention of Joseph Triner Corporation is that the statute violated the equal protection clause. The state officials insist that the provision of the statute is a reasonable regulation of the liquor traffic; and also, that since the adoption of the Twenty-First Amendment, the equal protection clause is not applicable to imported intoxicating liquor. As we are of opinion that the latter contention is sound, we shall not discuss whether the statutory provision is a reasonable regulation of the liquor traffic.
First. The statute clearly discriminates in favor of liquor processed within the State as against liquor completely processed elsewhere. For only that locally processed may be sold regardless of whether the brand has been registered. That, under the amendment, discrimination against imported liquor is permissible although it is not an incident of reasonable regulation of the liquor traffic, was settled by State Board of Equalization v. Young's Market Co., 299 U.S. 59, 62, 63, 57 S.Ct. 77, 78, 79, 81 L.Ed. 38. There, it was contended that, by reason of the discrimination involved, a statute imposing a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tenn. Wine & Spirits Retailers Ass'n v. Thomas
...discriminated against out-of-state products. See, e.g., Young’s Market, supra , at 62, 57 S.Ct. 77 ; 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 (19......
-
Tiq Bacchus Imports, Ltd v. Dias, 82-1565
...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 Equalization v. Young's Market Co., 299 U.S. 59, 57 S.Ct. 77, 81 L.Ed. 38 (1936), and we have ......
-
Carter v. Commonwealth of Virginia Dickerson v. Same
...what constitutes a 'reasonable regulation' of the liquor traffic. The issue was fairly presented in Ma- honey v. Triner Corp., 304 U.S. 401, 58 S.Ct. 952, 82 L.Ed. 1424. And this was the 'We are asked to limit the powers conferred by the amendment so that only those importations may be forb......
-
Hostetter v. Idlewild Bon Voyage Liquor Corporation
...the regularity of Idlewild's operations under the relevant federal law and regulations. 9 Likewise, in Mahoney v. Joseph Triner Corp., 304 U.S. 401, 58 S.Ct. 952, 82 L.Ed. 1424, the Court held that the Equal Protection Clause is not applicable to imported intoxicating liquor. 'A classificat......
-
Missouri's Hangover: Wine-ing about Direct-to-Consumer Prohibition: Sarasota Wine Mkt., LLC v. Schmitt.
...understandably) read the section to authorize broad state regulation."). (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 ri......
-
ENDING THE FEDERAL CANNABIS PROHIBITION: LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE HISTORY OF ALCOHOL REGULATIONS, TWENTY-FIRST AMENDMENT, AND DORMANT COMMERCE CLAUSE JURISPRUDENCE.
...Ziffrin, Inc. v. Reeves, 308 U.S. 132, 138-139 (1939). (162.) See, e.g., Young's 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 (1939). (163.) Young's Market, 299 U.S. at 77 ("A classific......
-
The Supreme Court and Interstate Barriers
...the national commerce from any67 Heim v. McCall, 239 U. S. 175; Atkin v.Kansas, 191 U. S. 207.68 Mahoney v. Triner Corp., 304 U. S. 401;State Board v. Young’s Market, 299 U. S. 59.69 Hale v. Bimco Trading Co., supra note 44.70 The Shreveport Case, 234 U. S. 342; Mc-Dermott v. Wisconsin, 228......
-
Good history, good law (and by coincidence good policy too: Granholm v. Heald.
...recognized by the Twenty-First Amendment cannot be deemed forbidden by the Fourteenth."); see also Mahoney v. Joseph Triner Corp., 304 U.S. 401, 403 (1938) ("[T]he equal protection clause is not applicable to imported intoxicating (46.) Granholm, 125 S. Ct. at 1927 (Thomas, J., dissenting).......