Sunday, March 12, 2006
Unintended Consequences
Michael Alison Chandler of the Washington Post describes how the Supreme Court decision that in-state and out-of-state wineries have to treated the same when it comes to the shipment of wine has been a disaster for the business.
As I'm sure you remember Mrs. Swedenburg brought the issue before the U.S. Supreme Court, with the support of The Institute for Justice, regarding the fact that her vineyard was being discriminated against by several states because she could not ship directly to customers in these states while in-state vineyards could. The court ruled last year that she was right. But now, in an effort to comply with the decision and to protect distributors, states are now saying that no direct wine sales are allowed by anyone. This reaction turns the ruling on its head.
Legislators in Maryland and Virginia are trying to pass laws to change this but as of today direct sales of wine in Virginia are illegal and this will be the same in Maryland as of May 31st.
PermaLink | 11:25 AM |
|
As I'm sure you remember Mrs. Swedenburg brought the issue before the U.S. Supreme Court, with the support of The Institute for Justice, regarding the fact that her vineyard was being discriminated against by several states because she could not ship directly to customers in these states while in-state vineyards could. The court ruled last year that she was right. But now, in an effort to comply with the decision and to protect distributors, states are now saying that no direct wine sales are allowed by anyone. This reaction turns the ruling on its head.
Legislators in Maryland and Virginia are trying to pass laws to change this but as of today direct sales of wine in Virginia are illegal and this will be the same in Maryland as of May 31st.
PermaLink | 11:25 AM |
| 
