Cherry Hill Vineyard v. Baldacci, No. 07-1513. This is a big case in which lots of states filed amicus briefs. The plaintiffs, a vinyard, claim that a Maine statute which allows small vinyards to operate outside the usual alcohol control laws violates the dormant commerce clause. In particular, “farm wineries” don’t have to sell to middlemen, but can sell to anyone at their place, or at two other places. Sales must be made “face to fact.” See Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 28-A, § 1355(3)(A). Small out-of-state wineries are accorded the same rights. The wineries appear to have argued that “the challenged portions of the Maine regime are discriminatory in effect, that is, that by allowing direct sales to consumers only in face-to-face transactions, the statutory scheme has the practical effect of benefitting Maine wineries at the expense of their out-of-state competitors.” Seyla says it is close but sides with the state, saying that it isn’t even discriminatory (so there is no need to go to whether the state has a legitimate interest.) Applying Granholm v. Heald, 544 U.S. 460 (2005), the First points out that there really are no barriers to out-of-state wineries entering Maine, and there is no discrimination against out-of-state wines or any practical discriminatory effect.
Because of the large number of amici pauses to note that amici have appeared and filed briefs in support of the appellees (the state of Maine) on different grounds then those advanced below, and there is a line of cases in the First which say that amici can’t advance new arguments in favor of the appellants. But, Selya says, this isn’t really a problem, because the First agrees with the District Court.
Comments