Oral Argument Held in Ninth Circuit on Appeal by Wine Aficionados Challenging Arizona Retail Shipping Laws

On August 22, 2024, a panel of the Ninth Circuit comprised of Judges Bade, Forrest, and Smith heard oral arguments on the appeal of the district court’s decision upholding Arizona’s retail laws banning out of state retail sales.

Like the recently argued case in the Third Circuit, these judges noted the same problems that caused the district court to rule for Arizona. Most importantly, these two wine fan plaintiffs seek to challenge the law that prevents out of state retailers from selling to Arizona residents but fail to attack the law that requires all retailer to get their alcohol from Arizona retailers. The Supreme Court has repeatedly noted that this is a permissible mandate under the three tier system.

To hear the argument, click here.

To watch the argument, click here.

(previous post) Briefing Complete for 9th Circuit Review of Arizona Retailer Laws

The briefing is complete for the 9^th Circuit on the dormant Commerce Clause challenge by two wine aficionados to Arizona laws on wine retailing.  After the Arizona District Court upheld the state law, an appeal was filed.  The state of Arizona has filed its response brief and and a brief was filed by the intervening defendant-appellee Wine and Spirits Wholesaler Association of Arizona.  Amicus briefs were filed by the National Beer Wholesalers Association as well as the American Beverage Licensees and Wine &Spirits Wholesalers of America. These briefs noted the faults that the district court found in plaintiff’s case with the amici highlighting the redressability remedy under plaintiff’s theory.

The Appellant has filed its opening brief and its reply brief.  In its response brief the appellant puts a bullseye on the state’s physical presence laws but doesn’t address many of the state’s and amici arguments about the redressability of the relief sought by plaintiffs.  The next step is for the 9th Circuit to schedule oral argument in the upcoming months.

And maybe because he had so much fun the last time in Arizona and also because the lead attorney wants to break the 50-lawsuit mark, the plaintiff’s attorney has filed ANOTHER lawsuit in Arizona with new local counsel under the same theory.   The new plaintiffs include a wine retailer this time and again argue that the state is violating the dormant Commerce Clause with a broadside against various state laws it claims violates the U.S. Constitution.