Clint Bolick Robin B. Heatwole Dry Comal Creek Vineyards, a Texas Corporation Hood River Vineyards, an Oregon Sole Proprietorship Miura Vineyards, a California Limited Liability Company v. Vernon M. Danielson, Chairman, Virginia Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control Warren Barry, Commissioner, Virginia Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control Esther M. Vassar, Commissioner, Virginia Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, and Virginia Wine Wholesalers Association, Incorporated, Intervenor/defendant, Martha Blevins Brissette, Amicus Curiae, State of Michigan Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America, Incorporated National Association of Beverage Retailers American Beverage Licensees National Beer Wholesalers Association Coalition of Licensed Beverage Associations Presidents' Forum of the Beverage Alcohol Industry National Alcohol Beverage Control Association, Incorporated National Conference of State Liquor Administrators, Amici Curiae in Support of Virginia Wineries Association Juanita Swedenburg David Lucas
Docket: 02-1367
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; May 23, 2003; Federal Appellate Court
In the case 330 F.3d 274, Clint Bolick and other plaintiffs, including several vineyards from Texas, Oregon, and California, challenged the Virginia Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control and its commissioners, Vernon M. Danielson, Warren Barry, and Esther M. Vassar, as defendants. The Virginia Wine Wholesalers Association intervened as a defendant, while various entities and associations, such as the State of Michigan and the Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America, submitted amicus briefs supporting the appellants. Conversely, the Virginia Wineries Association and other vineyard owners supported the appellees. The appeal arose from decisions made in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, with arguments presented on January 22, 2003, and a decision rendered on May 23, 2003. The case numbers are 02-1367 and 02-1368, presided over by Senior District Judge Richard L. Williams.
The plaintiffs, comprising two Virginia consumers and wineries from Texas, California, and Oregon, challenged the constitutionality of Virginia's Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) laws, which restrict the importation of wine and beer to a regulated multi-tiered structure. They claimed these laws, while purportedly enacted under the Twenty-first Amendment, violate the dormant Commerce Clause by favoring local manufacturers who can sell directly to consumers while discriminating against out-of-state producers who face higher costs due to the multi-tiered system. Specifically, they argued that the laws permitting State-run ABC stores to sell only Virginia farm wines also infringed upon the dormant Commerce Clause. The district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, declaring several provisions of the ABC laws unconstitutional and enjoining their enforcement.
Subsequent to the district court's decision, the Virginia legislature enacted bills H.B. 1652 and S.B. 1117, which altered some of the statutes under appeal, leading Virginia to assert that this development rendered parts of the case moot and necessitated a reassessment of the remaining issues. The appellate court determined that the new statutes affected the context of the plaintiffs' prospective relief and therefore vacated the district court's order, remanding the case for further proceedings in light of the recent changes and relevant case law.
