Federal District Court in Washington Denies Motion for Reconsideration in Challenge to Liquor Shipping

The district court quickly considered and rejected an attempt to reconsider the opinion supporting state laws related to shipping liquor into Washington.

The plaintiffs had argued that the recent 9th Circuit retail shipping case out of Arizona needed to be briefed in this case. The judge felt otherwise.

An appeal to the 9th Circuit is expected.

(earlier post) Federal District Court in Washington State District Court Dismisses Challenge to Direct Shipping Restrictions on Liquor

Judge Thomas Rice of the Eastern District of Washington has granted the state’s cross-motion for summary judgment and denied the Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment related to the efforts by a New York distillery to sell directly to Washington state consumers.  Plaintiffs had alleged that the Washington state licensing regime violated the dormant Commerce Clause by discriminating against out of state suppliers.

Washington allows suppliers to serve as retailers and ship to Washington consumers subject to all the state regulatory checkpoints, including physical inspection of their actual premises. In looking at this law, the court noted: “How states may regulate the transportation and distribution of alcohol is treated somewhat differently than other types of goods due to Section 2 of the Twenty-first Amendment.”  As a result, the court examined the WA law and noted the recent 9^th Circuit opinion in the Arizona Day v. Henry case and concluded that Washington’s physical presence law is not a violation of the Constitution.

“Washington may follow a modified three-tier system, but the same principle laid out Day applies. Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that Washington law creates an exception to Washington’s regulatory scheme for in-state distilleries that out-of-state distilleries must otherwise be subjected to. Washington’s licensing requirements for distilleries functioning as retailers applies evenhandedly to instate and out-of-state actors. For these reasons, the Court finds Plaintiffs have not met their burden in showing that Washington’s licensing laws are discriminatory against out-of-state distilleries, therefore, the Court’s inquiry ends at step one and Plaintiffs’ claims must fail.”