The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued its decision in Lebamoff Enterprises v Whitmer yesterday, unanimously reversing the district court’s decision. In doing so, the judges noted that Lebamoff Enterprises’ suit was “nothing less than an attempt to re-create” a problem resolved over a century ago by legislation known as the Webb-Kenyon Act—which was later enshrined in Section 2 of the Twenty-First Amendment.
This case began when Lebamoff Enterprises, an Indiana retailer, challenged a Michigan state law that enables certain retailers to obtain delivery privileges. According to Lebamoff’s argument, such a law should be deemed unconstitutional as it gives in-state retailers an unfair advantage over out-of-state retailers. However, as noted by the court, this argument fails to account for a wide variety of differences between these two classes of retailers.
Furthermore, the court held this argument also fails to sufficiently account for the power of the state to decide “whether to permit sales of alcohol within its borders and, if so, on what terms and in what way.” In rejecting the retailer’s argument, the judges reminded Lebamoff Enterprises of the “broad latitude” afforded to the states in the wake of Prohibition’s failure. In the 6th Circuit, existing precedent indicates this “latitude” makes a State’s decision to adhere to a three-tier distribution system “immune from direct challenge on Commerce Clause grounds.”
In upholding the Michigan law, the court also noted the wide array of legitimate purposes the state’s control system serves—including the maintenance of orderly markets, promotion of moderation, and protection of the health and safety of citizens. While individuals may debate the ideal weight of each variable, every state is afforded the right to strike its own “balance” via its regulatory scheme under the Twenty-First Amendment.
The case is now remanded to the district court for additional proceedings.
The decision can be found here.