Judge Sutton wrote the opinion which overturns the lower court’s decision finding that Michigan’s wine retailer shipping law was unconstitutional.

Very little of the opinion dealt with Tennessee Wine’s drawing the line of discrimination to retailers.

Second, much of the justification dealt with the fact that because Indiana had no minimum pricing rules and offered quantity discounts, which Michigan does not, that Indiana retailers could ship product into the state cheaper than Michigan retailers could ship product.

There was no evidence presented that any state which has a wine retailer shipping law has experienced this. The evidentiary standards from Tennessee Wine did not play a major role in this decision.

I will provide a more extensive review but I want to get the decision and some highlights out so you have something to read before lunch.

As liquor lawyers, we are all busy during dire circumstances, so this morning does not afford me the time to write the detailed analysis that will come soon. Stay safe and healthy


Michigan Lebamoff decision