Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Association v. Thomas

Supreme Court of the United States · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawDormant Commerce ClauseTwenty-first AmendmentAlcohol regulationdormant Commerce ClauseTwenty-first Amendmentalcohol licensingresidency requirements

Facts

Tennessee required an individual seeking an initial retail liquor license to have been a bona fide resident of the State for the previous two years, and it imposed parallel residency requirements on corporate applicants' officers and directors. Total Wine and Affluere applied for Tennessee liquor store licenses even though they did not satisfy those durational-residency requirements. Tennessee's attorney general had twice concluded that the residency requirements violated the Commerce Clause, and the State did not defend them in the Supreme Court. The only provision defended before the Court was the 2-year residency requirement for initial retail licenses.

Issue

Does Tennessee's 2-year durational-residency requirement for initial retail liquor license applicants violate the dormant Commerce Clause, or is it saved by § 2 of the Twenty-first Amendment because it regulates alcohol distribution within the State?

Rule

A state law regulating alcohol that discriminates against out-of-state goods or nonresident economic actors is not shielded by § 2 of the Twenty-first Amendment unless it is genuinely tied to legitimate public health or safety interests. Section 2 gives States latitude to adopt alcohol-related health and safety measures, but it does not authorize protectionist discrimination that has little relationship to those interests; discriminatory alcohol laws remain subject to the dormant Commerce Clause's nondiscrimination principle.

🔒

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.

Ohio requires anyone seeking a first-time retail spirits license to have lived in Ohio for the preceding three years. Maya Patel, who has operated licensed liquor stores in Michigan for a decade, applies to open a store in Toledo and is denied solely because she moved to Ohio eight months ago.

If Maya challenges the law, which is the strongest basis for invalidating it?

Explanation. A discriminatory alcohol law is not immune from dormant Commerce Clause scrutiny merely because it regulates in-state alcohol distribution. A durational-residency requirement plainly favors residents over nonresidents, so the state must justify it as genuinely tied to legitimate health or safety interests. The majority stressed that bare assertions are not enough; the state needs concrete evidence, and obvious nondiscriminatory alternatives matter. (Derived from Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Association v. Thomas (n.d.).)