REED DAY, ET AL V. BEN HENRY, ET AL
Split Score
What is a Split Score?
This score (0-100) indicates how likely this case is to be reviewed by the Supreme Court based on:
Case Summary
Disposition
Affirmed
Arizona residents challenged the State’s requirement that only retailers with an in-state storefront and Arizona manager may ship wine directly to consumers, arguing it violates the dormant Commerce Clause. The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the State, holding that even if the rule is discriminatory, it is an essential feature of Arizona’s constitutionally legitimate three-tier alcohol system and therefore permissible under § 2 of the Twenty-first Amendment.
Circuit Split Identified
Legal Issue
Whether a state may uphold a physical-presence requirement for alcohol retailers at step two of the Tennessee Wine test merely by characterizing it as an 'essential feature' of the three-tier system, without producing concrete public-health evidence.
Circuit Positions
Physical-presence requirement is an essential component of the three-tier system and therefore valid without additional evidentiary showing.
Even essential components must be justified with concrete evidence that nondiscriminatory alternatives are inadequate; physical-presence requirement cannot be upheld per se.
Conflict Summary
The Third, Fourth, Eighth, and now Ninth Circuits uphold physical-presence requirements as per se valid because they are integral to a state’s three-tier alcohol regime, whereas the First and Sixth Circuits require the state to produce concrete, non-protectionist evidence that no reasonable nondiscriminatory alternative could achieve the same public-health or safety goals.