Federal Court dismisses RI’s attempt to dismiss ban lawsuit

A lawsuit challenging Rhode Island’s ban on domestic direct-to-consumer alcohol sales has survived a great procedural challenge.

U.S. District Judge John McConnell Jr. on Friday rejected the state’s attempt to dismiss the case for lack of standing.

The complaint, filed in 2019, argues that banning foreign companies from shipping alcohol directly to Rhode Island residents without first stopping at a local wholesaler and retailer is an unconstitutional trade offense interstate.

This is part of an effort supported by national retailers to repeal state laws preventing direct sales across the country.

Indiana law firm Epstein Cohen Seif & Porter is advocating for the Rhode Island plaintiffs and guiding them on how to try to order wine and oppose the ban in a way that could be taken to court.

But lawyers defending the state and representing a coalition of liquor distributors argued that these tactical purchases showed that the plaintiffs did not really want to buy wine from a mail order wine service outside of the UK. State and, therefore, lacked the legal capacity to prosecute.

To support this, the motion to dismiss stated that the plaintiffs had never identified a wine that a local store could not specially order, only that the national mail order services refused to serve them due to Rhode law. Island.

Could any of the complainants obtain a certain Barolo red wine from the Domaine Elio Grasso in Italy as a gift for his brother?

Plaintiff, Michelle Drum of Newport, tried three liquor stores in Newport and none won.

A Rhode Island retailer told her they “might be able to order this wine for her,” according to the state’s motion to dismiss.

But McConnell said the state’s argument “inappropriately links intention and harm in fact and marginalizes long-standing Commerce Clause jurisprudence.”

“Put simply, the plaintiffs have contacted out-of-state traders and have been prevented from purchasing and receiving a legal product in an interstate market in which they wish to participate,” he wrote.

He added that the question of whether there really are wines that Rhode Islanders cannot purchase due to state regulations “may have more relevance in assessing the implications of the commerce clause. in the midst of an analysis on the merits “than on the preponderance.

The wine transportation lawsuit is one of the more recent offers to weaken or dismantle Rhode Island’s “three tier” liquor distribution system, which protects liquor stores and local distributors from the harshest of people. national retailers and e-commerce. (Rhode Islanders can legally order drinks directly from their manufacturer, although some wineries and distilleries are reluctant to ship to the state for fear of getting tangled up in its liquor laws.)

According to court documents, the State Department of Business Regulation has filed 10 enforcement actions against online alcohol orders in the past two years.

“Rhode Island is a small market for wine, and many rare, unusual, and highly allocated wines that are distributed in other states are not stocked or sold by Rhode Island retailers, but are readily available from retailers located in Connecticut, New York and California. who will ship and deliver to states where it is legal to do so, ”the complaint said.

“Complainants cannot afford the time and expense to travel to out-of-state wine retailers to purchase wine and personally transport it to their homes, nor minimize the cost per bottle by purchasing multiple checkouts at the same time because [state laws] make it illegal for a consumer to bring more than 15 bottles (3 gallons) into the state for personal use.

Multiple attempts by state lawmakers to change the law and allow direct-to-consumer alcohol sales have nowhere ended up in the General Assembly.

[email protected]

(401) 277-7384

On Twitter: @PatrickAnderso_