Corps have protections under the 14th Amendment

[Deleted]

Kentucky federal court ruling adds steam to Tennessee debate on liquor sales



7:39 PM, Aug 14, 2012 |
Comments


Written by

Josh Brown

The Tennessean





A federal court ruling against a Kentucky law prohibiting wine and liquor sales at grocery stores could energize efforts to loosen similar regulations in Tennessee, business groups said Tuesday.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge John G. Heyburn II found the neighboring state’s law unconstitutional by preventing grocery and convenience stores from selling liquor and wine but allowing other retailers to do so. The judge said the 70-year-old law violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Jarron Springer, president of the Tennessee Grocers & Convenience Store Association, said the ruling in Kentucky should serve as a “wake-up call to legislators that these state laws do need to change.”

Despite the ruling, Springer said it’s unlikely his group would take the state to court as business groups did in Kentucky. That’s because the neighboring state explicitly prohibits grocery stores from selling liquor — the source of its constitutional problem — while Tennessee’s simply restricts liquor and wine stores from selling other products.

Still, one more border state potentially allowing wine sales in grocery stores bolsters his group’s case as it lobbies for legislative changes, Springer said.

“Obviously that does impact any state that is starting to take a look at state laws and how they’re written,” he said. “It would be the sixth state of the eight that border us that allow these types of sales. Tax dollars are going to leave our state from our northern border and go up there.”

Josh Hammond, president of The Tennessee Wine & Spirits Retailers Association, said it’s too early to tell exactly what impact the ruling will have on the debate in Tennessee, where liquor sellers have been battling efforts to loosen restrictions for years.

“There’s no question that it concerns me,” Hammond said. “The big thing is that anything that happens at the state level, it does have repercussions throughout the whole country. And states do take notice of this.”

Hammond, who co-owns a liquor and wine store in Memphis, refuted the idea that the ruling might result in luring Tennessee residents, and their money, to grocery stores in Kentucky.

“If they want to scream about people leaving the state of Tennessee to go shopping, that is absolutely not the case on this side of the state,” he said.

Sen. Bill Ketron, R-Murfreesboro, who has sponsored previous legislation that would loosen liquor laws in the state, was heartened by the Kentucky ruling. He plans to introduce a bill once again in the next session.

“I think that sends a huge signal for the possible passage for legislation here in Tennessee,” he said.

Gregory A. Hall of the Louisville Courier-Journal contributed to this article.

[Deleted]

Unintended consequences of citizens united?

[basilosaurus]

I hate liquor laws. There was a big fight in Colorado (which also prohibits sale in groceries) because of some old law that said beer could only be sold in bars, and someone wanted to go after the liquor stores for selling beer, but they could still sell wine and liquor.

In CO it was the liquor sellers who wanted to keep the strict regulations. They didn't want grocery stores providing competition.

As someone who's lived on a border, I absolutely went across the river for certain purchases. I've even done it while traveling if I was in a place that didn't allow alcohol sales on Sunday.

I wouldn't have done it while living in Nashville, though. Chattanooga, definitely.

[Deleted]

I find our liquor laws strange too... but don't like how the judge got to his ruling.

[basilosaurus]

Um, yeah, I was having a brain fart and was thinking commerce clause. 14th is insane to my non-lawyer self.

[Deleted]

Kentucky is dumb. You can't buy liquor in a grocery store but they have a drive through liquor store on every corner in Louisville. Not that I'm complaining, it makes my life easier, but it makes no sense.

[heyjude]

Uhhhhhhhhh.

I'm going to need more alcohol to handle this new corporatocracy.

[ESF]

I'm sort of on the fence on this one.

I mean, many of these convenience stores are not corporations but rather individual people just running a mom and pop shop. Does that change your view at all?

The law is discriminatory on its face. Whether the discrimination here is or should be illegal, I don't know.

So let's pretend for a second that the 14th amendment actually does cover corporations. Like others, I think liquor laws are stupid, so I admit to having an issue with the way in which some types of retailers were singled out. There's no suspect class to trigger a higher level of scrutiny, so the question is just whether the state has a rational basis to discriminate against one group over another.

If a large number of these retailers being discriminated against aren't corporations, then I don't really have a huge problem making the state come forward and show some rational basis for why they are fucking over Bob's Corner Grocery while giving more rights to BevMo.

[Deleted]

ESF-

But your argument only works if corporations are "people" since the 14thAmendment is for people.

We discriminate against a lot of corporations. Does this ruling mean that my small business will have to file with the SEC or conversely, DH's publicly traded company will no longer have to file with the SEC because the regulations discriminate against "large" corporations.

[ESF]

Aug 15, 2012 13:23:13 GMT -5 @septimus said:

ESF-

But your argument only works if corporations are "people" since the 14thAmendment is for people.

We discriminate against a lot of corporations. Does this ruling mean that my small business will have to file with the SEC or conversely, DH's publicly traded company will no longer have to file with the SEC because the regulations discriminate against "large" corporations.

But there's a rational basis for discriminating in that way. You don't have to treat everyone the same, you just need a rational basis to treat them differently.

I'm squicked out by the 14th amendment applying to corporations. I'll admit that. But I'm equally bothered by the idea that congress could pass stupid laws that intentionally discriminate against small businesses for no other reason than to return political favors. Maybe that's not a constitutional wrong...I'm not really sure. I need to think about this one some more.

[mominatrix]

I want to interpret Citizens United to ban corporations from being bought and sold like slaves.

...via mobile.