NY to out-of-state wine retailers: STAY OUT OF NY

Time and again this Court has held that, in all but the narrowest circumstances, state laws violate the Commerce Clause if they mandate ‘differential treatment of in-state and out-of-state economic interests.’ This rule is essential to the foundations of the Union. States may not enact laws that burden out-of-state producers or shippers simply to give a competitive advantage to in-state businesses. We have viewed with particular suspicion state statutes requiring business operations to be performed in the home state that could more efficiently be performed elsewhere. – Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy

Sigh. Despite the statement above from a 2005 ruling by the US Supreme Court that states can not discriminate against out-of-state wineries and must treat them as they do their own in-state wineries, the powerful liquor/wine distributor lobby keeps trying to preserve their power to, in my opinion, the detriment of the consumer and the wine industry. A federal appeals court in NY has upheld a ruling that NY can bar out-of-state retailers from shipping wine into NY while NY retailers can ship wine.
This ruling seems, to me, to be counter to the 2005 Supreme Court decision. There are several similar cases coming up in the future in Texas and other states. Unless the Supreme Court steps in and broadens their decision and resolves the apparent conflict between the 21st ammendment (which grants states the power to regulate the sale of alcohol) and the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, we’re going to keep seeing this sort of thing happening. The only way around it is to make sure that your state passes laws that are in the best interests of the wine consumer.
Based on a story from Wine Spectator online.