Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Bacchus Imports, Ltd. v. Dias

Supreme Court of the United States · 1984 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawCommerce ClauseTwenty-first AmendmentState Taxationdormant Commerce Clausediscriminatory taxeconomic protectionismlocal industry subsidy

Facts

Hawaii imposed a 20% excise tax on wholesale liquor sales. The legislature later exempted okolehao and fruit wine, and the Hawaii Supreme Court described those exemptions as intended to encourage and stimulate the local liquor industry; during the relevant period, the only fruit wine manufactured in Hawaii was pineapple wine. Appellant wholesalers sold taxed liquor in Hawaii and paid the tax under protest while seeking refunds, alleging that exempting these local products while taxing others violated the Constitution. The challenged exemptions had expired by the time the case reached the Court, but they had operated during the tax years for which refunds were sought.

Issue

Whether Hawaii's exemption from its wholesale liquor excise tax for okolehao and pineapple wine, both locally produced beverages, violated the Commerce Clause by discriminating in favor of local products. If so, whether the exemption was nevertheless saved by the Twenty-first Amendment.

Rule

A State may not, consistent with the Commerce Clause, impose a tax that discriminates against interstate commerce by providing a direct commercial advantage to local business. A finding of forbidden economic protectionism may rest on discriminatory purpose or discriminatory effect, and where a liquor regulation violates a central tenet of the Commerce Clause, it is not saved by the Twenty-first Amendment unless interests closely related to that Amendment sufficiently support the regulation.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Oregon imposes an 18% wholesale excise tax on all distilled spirits sold in the state. The statute exempts hazelnut brandy made from Oregon-grown hazelnuts, and the legislative history states the exemption was enacted to help local distillers gain market share against spirits shipped from other states.

If an Idaho wholesaler that sells taxed spirits in Portland challenges the exemption, how should a court most likely rule?

Explanation. A state may not impose a tax that discriminates against interstate commerce by providing a direct commercial advantage to local business. Here, the exemption is aimed at helping a local liquor product compete against out-of-state products, so it has a protectionist purpose and discriminatory effect. The majority rejected the view that uniform taxation of wholesalers cures discrimination where local products receive the exemption. (Derived from Bacchus Imports, Ltd. v. Dias (n.d.).)