U.S. Supreme Court rules against age verification law

On February 20, 2008, a U.S. Supreme Court ruling (Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor Transport Association, et al) overturned a Maine law that required common carriers to check the identification of recipients of tobacco ordered online or by mail. The court’s decision will unfortunately affect similar laws governing other age-restricted products, including alcohol.

The court unanimously found that federal law precludes states like Florida from requiring companies such as UPS and FedEx to verify the identification of recipients of direct shipments of wine or any other alcohol.

Age verification laws that rely on common carriers to make a face-to-face check for identification on delivery are no longer enforceable in light of this ruling.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted: “State measures to prevent youth access to tobacco, however, are increasingly thwarted by the ease with which tobacco products can be purchased through the Internet.” Cyberspace acts as a risk-free zone allowing anonymous purchases, Ginsburg points out. The same may be said for alcohol products.

The Florida Coalition to Prevent Underage Drinking supports responsible laws requiring that alcohol be sold through licensed businesses in Florida that can be held accountable for violations.

Supreme Court Ruling

U.S. District Court says Florida law doesn’t meet constitutional test

A U.S. District Court judge in Tampa on Aug. 5 said that Florida’s statutes regulating direct sales from out-of-state wineries were in conflict with a recent ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that said states must treat direct sales of wine on “evenhanded terms.”

Florida’s regulations controlling wine sales and shipments directly to consumers — found in F.S. 561.54 and 561.545 — violate the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution and are therefore unconstitutional, the judge said.

In its ruling on May 16, the U.S. Supreme Court said that Michigan and New York had not sufficiently justified state laws — similar to Florida’s — that blocked Internet sales from out-of-state wineries while allowing such sales from inside the state.

The Florida Coalition to Prevent Underage Drinking supports responsible laws requiring that alcohol be sold through licensed businesses in Florida that can be held accountable for selling to minors.

Supreme Court Ruling | Dissenting Opinion | US District Court Final Order

Court Case History

In May 2004, The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear two cases in which the states of Michigan and New York are defending their constitutional right to regulate the sale and distribution of alcohol in order to protect minors, track sales and ensure the collection of taxes. Oral arguments began Dec. 7, 2004.The Court announced its decision May 16, 2005.

The ruling by the court could affect the billion dollar wine industry’s increasingly aggressive campaign to dismantle longstanding state alcohol systems, thus deregulating alcohol sales and promoting unaccountable distribution of beer, wine and liquor over the internet.

In the Michigan case, Attorney General Mike Cox asked the Supreme Court to overturn an appeals court ruling that removed the state’s longstanding ban on home shipments of alcohol by unlicensed, out-of-state alcohol producers. Such shipments, according Attorney General Cox, bypass Michigan’s alcohol tracking and distribution system—known as the three-tier system—which protects citizens from unregulated, unaccountable and anonymous sales of alcohol.

According to Michigan, “Section 2 of the 21 st Amendment is plain and clear. It provides direct authority to the states to regulate the sale, transportation and importation of alcohol…” However, it noted that “federal courts across the nation are inconsistent and in conflict with the interpretation of this constitutional amendment when it intersects with the Commerce Clause.” As a result, Michigan believed the case was appropriate for Supreme Court review.

The importance of the three-tier system has generated significant activity within the courts. Since Michigan filed it’s request, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals acted to protect New York’s alcohol regulatory system. It confirmed the state’s constitutional right to have out-of-state alcohol providers abide by New York’s alcohol laws. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals cited the 21 st Amendment in its argument, noting that “changes in marketing techniques or national consumer demand for a product do not alter the meaning of a constitutional amendment.”

In the New York case, the court also said, “in 2000, there were over 2,100 wineries in the country,” and that “requiring New York officials to traverse the country to ensure that direct sales to consumers (no matter how small) comply with New York law would render the regulatory scheme useless.” The number of wineries has since grown to as many as 3,000.

Thirty-six attorneys general as well as the Michigan Beer & Wine Wholesalers Association, National Alcohol Beverage Council Association, National Conference of State Liquor Administrators and the National Beer Wholesalers Association joined Michigan in urging the court to hear the case. The thirty-six state attorneys general were from Ohio, Maryland, Louisiana, Minnesota, Kansas, Massachusetts, Indiana, Hawaii, Utah, Oklahoma, North Dakota, Texas, Kentucky, Tennessee, Nevada, Maine, New Jersey, Idaho, Georgia, Mississippi, Rhode Island, Virginia, Montana, Wisconsin, South Dakota, Missouri, Oregon, New Mexico, Arizona, Illinois, Washington, Alabama, Delaware, Iowa, Florida and Connecticut.

Lawsuits to dismantle local alcohol controls have been filed here in Florida as well as Arizona, Indiana, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas, Virginia and Washington.