+- WineBoard (https://www.wines.com/wineboard)
+-- Forum: RESOURCES AND OTHER STUFF (https://www.wines.com/wineboard/forum-300.html)
+--- Forum: Wine and Politics (https://www.wines.com/wineboard/forum-7.html)
+--- Thread: Virginia Court Case Press Release (/thread-2965.html)
- Bucko - 01-20-2001
Coalition for Free Trade
Mailing Address:
Post Office Box 4277
Napa, California 94558
PHN: 707-747-1556
FAX: 707-747-1566
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
FREE TRADERS FIGHT FOR WINE IN FEDERAL COURT
Wineries and Consumers Barrel Over Bureaucrats in Virginia Courthouse
San Francisco, CA Oral argument was presented today before Magistrate Judge Dennis W. Donhal in the matter of Bolick, et al v. Roberts, et al. This is the first civil rights test case to be filed by both wineries and consumers challenging state prohibitions against private citizens receiving wine direct from out-of-state purveyors. The Coalition for Free Trade (CFT) and the plaintiffs believe that bans on direct shipments of wine violate the
Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
The case was filed on November 15, 1999 in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division by attorneys Matthew Hale of Hale and Associates and Professor Dan Ortiz of the University of Virginia School of Law on behalf of Virginia wine consumers Robin Heatwole and Clint Bolick and out-of-state wineries Hood River Vineyards of Hood River, Oregon, Dry Comal Creek Vineyards of New Braunfels, Texas and Miura Vineyards of Calistoga, California.
Prior to the proceedings, the entire record of the case was placed upon the judge’s bench. As Judge Donhal entered the room and sat down, the courtroom burst out in laughter: under the mountain of over 15,000 pages of official documents, the attorneys could barely see the top of Judge Donhal’s head. A great sense of humor did not
detract from the judge acknowledging the importance of this case to the American wine industry.
“Judge Donhal took everything under submission. It was clear that he had jumped into the case, and understood the nature of the issue,†said Professor Ortiz.
“This is by far the most heavily litigated direct shipping case to date. No legal issue or procedural matter went uncontested. This case was fought tooth and nail by both sides,†said Bill Kinzler, CFT’s general counsel.
The state’s attorney attempted to characterize the plaintiffs as irresponsible and callous towards underage drinking
issues. Professor Ortiz immediately objected and emphasized that while underage drinking is a very serious social problem, the state did not prove any correlation between out-of-state direct marketing and underage drinking.
Interestingly, the intervening wholesalers’ attorney argued most of the 21st amendment and the dormant commerce clause issues while the state allotted most of its time to the facts of the case.
“The wholesalers raised not only the Twenty-First Amendment, but also, the traditional ‘three-tier system’ as a
defense in their arguments. Incidentally, in over half a century of Virginia’s official legislative history that surfaced during discovery, there was a notable lack of reference to the phrase ‘three-tier system’,†said CFT’s Executive Director, Vivienne Nishimura.
CFT supported the plaintiffs by filing its own amicus brief that detailed the history of the Twenty-First Amendment and Webb-Kenyon Act. In the amicus brief, CFT stated, "The purpose of the Webb-Kenyon Act and the Twenty-first Amendment, its constitutional successor, was not to allow the States to foster a three-tier system, protect alcoholic beverage wholesalers, or to engage in any other exercises of its police powers than to enact and enforce
prohibitionary alcoholic beverage laws. Rather, their respective legislative histories reveal that their animating intent
was to allow “dry†states to remain “dry†by creating a means by which States that wanted to maintain prohibition (either on a state-wide or local option basis) could close their borders to all alcoholic beverages without running afoul of the negative Commerce Clause."
“We think this case is going to blow some of the cobwebs off of the 21st Amendment and reveal its limitations as a source of protectionist legislation,†added Kinzler.
A ruling is expected sometime in the spring.
The Coalition for Free Trade is the American wine industry’s legal solution to laws prohibiting consumer choice and fair trade. As such, CFT will continue to protect the interests of the wine industry to engage in direct commerce to consumers by participating as an active amicus in ongoing direct shipping court challenges.
####
Contact: Vivienne Y. Nishimura
Executive Director, Coalition for Free Trade
PHN: (707)-747-1556
Bucko
- hotwine - 01-20-2001
Excellent! Thank you!
- winoweenie - 01-20-2001
It`s a start! I`m printing this and sending it to John McCains` and Jon Kyles` offices as we "E". WW
- mrdutton - 01-20-2001
Go Mat Hale and Prof. Oritz!!!
- Thomas - 01-21-2001
Great stuff. Can't wait for the ruling.
- mrdutton - 01-21-2001
You can bet your bottom dollar that I am awaiting the decision with 'bated breath! What a wonderful deal it would be if Mat Hale, the Professor and team won!!
All that wine, so little time.........
[This message has been edited by mrdutton (edited 01-21-2001).]