Sarasota Wine Market, LLC, et al. v. Eric S. Schmitt, Attorney General of Missouri, et al.

In a long line of cases, this Court has repeatedly held that the states’ Twenty-first Amendment authority to regulate the distribution of alcohol is limited by the nondiscrimination principle of the Commerce Clause. Tenn. Wine & Spirits Retailers Ass’n v. Thomas, 139 S.Ct. 2449, 2470 (2019); Granholm v. Heald, 544 U.S. 460, 487 (2005); Healy v. Beer Inst., 491 U.S. 324, 342 (1989); Bacchus Ltd. v. Dias, 468 U.S. 263, 276 (1984). Departing from these precedents, the Eighth Circuit held that Missouri’s law prohibiting out-of-state wine retailers from participating in its online market was protected by the Amendment and immune from Commerce Clause scrutiny because physical presence in a state is an inherent prerequisite to effective regulation. The question, upon which the lower courts disagree, is: When considering both the Twenty-first Amendment and the Commerce Clause, may Missouri ban out-of-state wine retailers from participating in its online market when nondiscriminatory alternatives are available that would serve its regulatory interests?