1. Since the Twenty-First Amendment, the right of a State to
prohibit or regulate the importation of intoxicating liquor is not
limited by the commerce clause. P.
305 U. S.
394.
2. Regulation discriminatory between domestic and imported
intoxicating liquors, or between imported intoxicating liquors, is
not prohibited by the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment. P.
305 U. S.
394.
3. A statute of Michigan prohibits dealers in beer in that State
from selling any beer manufactured in a State which, by its laws,
discriminates in manner described against beer manufactured in
Michigan. Pursuant to the statute, the state Liquor Control
Commission designated specifically other States, ten in number,
including Indiana, which discriminated against Michigan beer,
whereupon Michigan licensees were prohibited from purchasing,
receiving, possessing, or selling any beer manufactured in those
States.
Held, as applied to an Indiana manufacturer of
beer who sought to restrain the enforcement of the Michigan
statute, it was not void as violating the commerce, due process, or
equal protection clauses of the Federal Constitution. Pp.
305 U. S. 392,
305 U. S.
394.
It is unnecessary to consider whether the statute is retaliatory
or protective in character; it is valid in either aspect.
4. The power of the State to forbid the sale of intoxicating
liquor is undoubted. P.
305 U. S.
394.
21 F.
Supp. 969 affirmed.
Appeal from a decree of a District Court of three judges denying
a temporary injunction and dismissing the bill in a suit to enjoin
the enforcement of a state liquor law alleged to be "retaliatory"
and unconstitutional.
Page 305 U. S. 392
MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS delivered the opinion of the Court.
Indianapolis Brewing Company, Inc., an Indiana corporation,
manufactures beer in that State. Under appropriate licenses, it has
for some years sold and shipped to dealers in Michigan its product
in interstate commerce. In July, 1937, the Michigan Liquor Control
Act was amended so as to prohibit Michigan dealers in beer from
selling any beer manufactured in a state which, by its laws,
discriminates against Michigan beer. By §40 of the amended Act, the
Michigan Commission is directed to declare what states discriminate
as that term is defined by the Act. [
Footnote 1] It named ten states. [
Footnote 2] Among these is Indiana,
Page 305 U. S. 393
which by its Liquor Control Act of 1935, as amended in 1937,
prohibits licensed Indiana wholesalers from importing any beer
which is not their absolute property, and requires that, in order
to secure the privilege of importing beer from other states, each
must obtain a "port of entry" permit, of which no fewer than ten
and no more than one hundred are to be granted, pay a license fee
of $1,500, and give a bond of $10,000, in addition to the license
fee and bond required of those who sell only Indiana beer.
[
Footnote 3]
The Indianapolis Company, suing on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated, brought, in the federal court for eastern
Michigan, this suit to enjoin the enforcement of that provision of
the Michigan law on the ground that it violates the Federal
Constitution. The members of the Michigan Liquor Control Commission
and other officers of the State were made defendants. As a
temporary, as well as a permanent, injunction was sought, a
three-judge court was convened to hear the application for a
temporary injunction. Defendants moved to dismiss the bill. It was
conceded that, if the law was unconstitutional, the plaintiff was
entitled to equitable relief. No question except that of the
constitutionality of the law was presented. The court held the law
valid, denied the temporary injunction, and dismissed the bill.
21 F.
Supp. 969.
Page 305 U. S. 394
The plaintiff contends that, although the Twenty-First Amendment
declares
"The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or
possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of
intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby
prohibited,"
the Michigan law should be held void as violating the commerce
clause and the due process and equal protection clauses of the
Fourteenth Amendment. It characterizes the law as "retaliatory;"
argues, among other things, that the Amendment may not be
interpreted as permitting retaliation, and insists that such
interpretation would defeat its purpose, as thereby Michigan would
be allowed to punish Indiana for doing what, under the rule applied
in
State Board of Equalization v. Young's Market Co.,
299 U. S. 59,
299 U. S. 63, is
permitted. Whether the Michigan law should not more properly be
described as a protective measure we have no occasion to consider.
For, whatever its character, the law is valid. Since the
Twenty-first Amendment, as held in the
Young case, the
right of a state to prohibit or regulate the importation of
intoxicating liquor is not limited by the commerce clause; and, as
held by that case and
Mahoney v. Joseph Triner Corp.,
304 U.S.
401, discrimination between domestic and imported intoxicating
liquors, or between imported intoxicating liquors, is not
prohibited by the equal protection clause. The further claim that
the law violates the due process clause is also unfounded. The
substantive power of the State to prevent the sale of intoxicating
liquor is undoubted.
Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.
S. 623.
Affirmed.
[
Footnote 1]
Amended § 40 of Michigan Act No. 281. Public Acts of 1937, pp.
509, 521, provides:
". . . The commission shall forthwith adopt a regulation
designating the states, the laws, or the rules or regulations of
which are found to require or regulations of which are found to
require a licensed wholesaler of beer therein to pay an additional
fee for the right to purchase, import, or sell beer manufactured in
this state, or which deny the issuance of a license authorizing the
importation of beer to any duly licensed wholesaler of beer therein
who may make application for such license; . . . the regulation
adopted shall prohibit all licensees from purchasing, receiving,
possessing, or selling any beer manufactured in any state therein
designated, said regulation to become effective ninety days after
its adoption. Any licensee or person adversely affected shall be
entitled to review by certiorari to the proper court the question
as to whether the commission has acted illegally or in excess of
authority in making its finding with respect to any state."
[
Footnote 2]
The regulation of the Liquor Control Commission issued December
14, 1937, is as follows:
"Pursuant to Act No. 8, Public Acts, Extra session of the year
1933 of the State of Michigan, as amended by Act No. 241 of the
Public Acts for the year 1935, and Act No. 281 of the Public Act
for the year 1937, particularly § 40 thereof, the Michigan Liquor
Control Commission promulgates the following rule and regulation
designating as discriminatory according to § 40 of said Act the
following States: Maine, Maryland, Nevada, Indiana, New Hampshire,
North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Vermont, Washington. These
designations are made after a careful examination of the laws and
rules and regulations of the aforementioned states."
[
Footnote 3]
Indiana Alcoholic Beverage Act of 1935, c. 226, amended by Act
of 1937, c.197, §§ 9, 40(a), 41, Burns' Annotated Statutes 1933,
Supp., §§ 12-508, 12-801, 12-901.