(editors note- My ability to link to documents is not working at present so I apologize for not having live links to filed briefs. I hope to rectify that problem soon.)
The briefing is complete for the 9th 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 and was joined 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 reply brief. In Its 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.
Leave a Reply