Volume I

Issue : 1: July 10, 2003

• The Dangers of Text Messaging
• Pop Up Purveyor Prevails in District Court
• Intel Loses Email Trespass Case on Appeal in California
• U.S. Court of Appeals Upholds Aimster Decision
• U.S. Federal Court of Appeal Reverses "Must Carry" Java Order Against Microsoft
• New York Court of Appeals Releases Key Decision in Telecommuting Case
• Quebec Court Upholds Websites Terms of Use Based on Implied Consent
• Adware Company Wins U.S. Summary Judgment Against U-Haul
• Government of Canada Wins Back Dot-Ca Domain Names in CDRP Proceeding
• Industry Canada Releases Authentication Consultation Report
• U.S. Supreme Court Upholds CIPA in Software Filtering Case
• U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Hear Two Key Cases
• Doctor Suspended Over Prescribing Medication For Customers of Online Pharmacies
• U.S. Court of Appeals Overturns Texas Online Wines Sales Law

Home > Volume I > Issue 1: July 10, 2003 > U.S. Court of Appeals Overturns Texas Online Wines Sales Law

U.S. Court of Appeals Overturns Texas Online Wines Sales Law

On June 26, 2003 , the United States Court of Appeals (5th Cir) issued an opinion in Dickerson v. Bailey (by summary judgment, affirmed on appeal), that a state-legislated ban on the direct-to-consumer sale of wine to Texan consumers, which applied only to out-of-state producers, was unconstitutional. Specifically, the Court ruled that the ban "facially" violated the judicial doctrine of "dormant commerce clause". The Court also found that the ban was of discriminatory intent and effect, blatantly promoting the economic interests of Texas wine producers over those of other states. Lastly, the Court held that the ban was not saved by Section 2 of the 21st Amendment to the U.S. constitution, which grants to states the power to regulate alcohol, because the discriminatory effect of the ban was not "incidental" and the legislation did not have a "legitimate local purpose".

Other Courts have issued similar opinions on the unconstitutionality of discriminatory bans on direct-to-consumer sales by out-of-state wineries: see the U.S. District Court (SDNY) in its opinion in Swedenburg v. Kelly (Nov. 12, 2002) in respect of the New York State ban and the U.S. Court of Appeals (4th Cir) opinion in Beskind v. Easley (April 8, 2003), in respect of a similar ban in North Carolina. It is worth noting however, that the US Courts have upheld bans on direct-to-consumer sale of wine, if such bans are applicable to both in-state and out-of-state wineries and therefore, are non-discriminatory in nature. In this regard, see: the opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals (7th Cir) in Bridenbaugh v. Wilson in respect of such measure in Indiana's ban and the opinion of the District Court (11th Cir) in Bainbridge v. Turner , 311 F.3d 1104, 1112 (2002) in respect of a Florida ban.

For a copy of Dickerson v. Bailey, visit:
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/02/02-21137-cv0.pdf

For a copy of Swedenburg v. Kelly, visit:
http://www.ij.org/PDF_folder/ny_winecase/wine_decision_11_12_02.pdf

For a copy of Beskind v. Easley, visit:
http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021432.P.pdf

For a copy of Bridenbaugh v. Wilson , visit:
http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op3.fwx?yr=00&num=1044&Submit1=Request+Opinion

For a copy of Bainbridge v. Turner, visit:
http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021432.P.pdf