New York Legalizes Interstate Direct Shipment of Wine:

In response to the Supreme Court's decision striking down New York's discriminatory ban on interstate direct-shipment of wine, Governor George Pataki this week signed a new law legalizing interstate direct shipment of wine. The law takes effect in 30 days.

The AP story is here. The story reports that Michigan, the other state involved in the Supreme Court case, is considering similar legislation that would move in the opposite direction, by banning all direct shipment, whether from in-state or out-of-state wineries.

ak47pundit (www):
Actually, Michigan is considering the opposite approach: Banning any shipment of wine to consumers, whether from within or without Michigan

From the article:
n response to the ruling, two legislators in Michigan have introduced bills that would ban all shipments of wine from wineries in and out of state. Other state lawmakers proposed allowing a customer to order and receive 24 cases of wine per year from a winery outside Michigan while continuing in-state winery sales.

Relevant Michigan bills are:
HB 4959HB 4959 Which would prohibit any such shipments


HB4987, this bill would permit direct shipment, but any shipper must have a Michigan Shipping permit and pay Michigan taxes on the wine shipped with an annual limit of 24 cases per consumer.

As you can see the Michigan Beer and Wine Wholesalers Association has been protecting its monopoly.
7.15.2005 2:29pm
Dilan Esper (mail) (www):
Congratulations, Professor Zywicki. I know you worked very hard on this issue, and this is good news for consumers in New York.
7.15.2005 3:39pm
Of course, out-of-state shippers have to obtain a license to take advantage of the new law.

And worse, it has a reciprocity requirement. Out-of-state wineries can ship directly to New Yorkers only if they hail from a state that has a substantially similar shipment law. This strikes me as constitutionally problematic.
7.15.2005 4:00pm
Not to nit pick, but government doesn't "legalize" an activity by passing a law. In this country, we start off with the proposition that all activity is legal, unless it is specifically prohibited. The contrary to that would be a system where everything is illegal unless specifically permitted by government.

In the wake of the Supreme Court decision, there was no (constitutional) law in New York on this issue. Even if the state had the ability to "legalize" something, there was nothing for it to "legalize" in this case, because the activity was not illegal following the Supreme Court decision overturning the old law.

The headline of the linked article makes a similar misstatement when it proclaims "New York authorizes out-of-state wine shipments." The state of New York hasn't "authorized" anything with this new law. To the contrary, the new law prohibits the ordering of more than 36 cases per year from any one winery.
7.18.2005 1:01pm