Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Walmart Stores, Inc., et al. v. Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission, et al.
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, No. 18-50299 · judgment December 9, 2019
Before the decision, modestly above the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for a Fifth Circuit decision below, a circuit split argued in the petition, and a business petitioner, and down for a state or local-government respondent.
Question presented
Just this past Term, this Court “reiterate[d] that the Commerce Clause by its own force restricts state protectionism” and that a state law violates that constitutional constraint if its “predominant effect … is simply to protect” in-state retailers “from out-ofstate competition.” Tennessee Wine & Spirits Retailers Ass’n v. Thomas, 139 S. Ct. 2449, 2461, 2476 (2019). In this case, the district court found as a matter of fact that a Texas law that bans public corporations from obtaining a license to own a retail liquor store has exactly that effect. Indeed, as a direct result of that law, 98% of liquor stores in Texas are wholly owned by Texans. Yet the Fifth Circuit nonetheless held that the law does not have a discriminatory effect on interstate commerce. It did not do so because it disputed the district court’s factual findings about the law’s real-world effects. It did so because, in its view, this Court’s decision in Exxon Corp. v. Governor of Maryland, 437 U.S. 117 (1978), compels the conclusion that a facially neutral regulation based on “corporate form” does not have a discriminatory effect as a matter of law, even if it “create[s] an obvious and significant barrier against out-of-state economic actors.” App.52 n.11. The question presented is: Whether a state law that has the predominant effect of protecting in-state retailers from out-of-state competition is immune from constitutional scrutiny just because it does not facially distinguish between in-state and out-of-state businesses of the same form.
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Erin E. Murphy
Clement & Murphy, PLLC
For respondent
Kyle Douglas Hawkins
Lehotsky Keller Cohn LLP
Proceedings
- Nov 23 2020Petition DENIED.
- Nov 04 2020DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/20/2020.
- Nov 04 2020Reply of petitioners Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed)
- Oct 20 2020Brief of respondent Texas Package Stores Association in opposition filed.
- Oct 20 2020Brief of respondents Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission, et al. in opposition filed.
- Aug 21 2020Brief amicus curiae of The Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America filed.
- Jul 31 2020Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including October 20, 2020, for all respondents.
- Jul 30 2020Motion to extend the time to file a response from August 21, 2020 to October 20, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.
- Jul 22 2020Response Requested. (Due August 21, 2020)
- Jul 13 2020Brief amicus curiae of Retail Litigation Center, Inc. filed. (Distributed)
- Jul 10 2020Brief amicus curiae of The Cato Institute filed. Distributed
- Jul 01 2020DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2020.
- Jun 16 2020Waiver of right of respondents Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission, et al. to respond filed.
- Jun 16 2020Waiver of right of respondent Texas Package Stores Association to respond filed.
- Jun 15 2020Letter pursuant to Rule 35.3 from counsel for respondents submitted.
- Jun 05 2020Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due July 13, 2020)
- Mar 13 2020Application (19A1013) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from April 6, 2020 to May 6, 2020, submitted to Justice Alito.
- Mar 13 2020Application (19A1013) granted by Justice Alito extending the time to file until May 6, 2020.