Southern Wine and Spirits Challenge to Missouri’s Residency Requirements 8th Circuit Briefing Complete And Five Amicus Briefs Filed

Normal
0

false
false
false

EN-US
JA
X-NONE

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}

You
may not remember the original district court opinion in the Southern Wine and
Spirits challenge to the Missouri residency requirements for wholesaler’s
licenses.  You can find it here.  Briefly, Southern sued when Missouri denied
it a wholesaler’s license based on the Missouri statute requiring actual
Missouri residency (Southern’s officers are Florida residents).

The
district court granted judgment to Missouri, rejecting Southern’s claims that
the residency requirements of the Missouri statute violated the Commerce, Equal
Protection, and Privileges and Immunities clauses of the Constitution.

Southern
appealed and in a previous post we put up that brief for your review.  The appellate briefing is finished and you
can find Missouri’s response brief here, and Southern’s Reply here. 

More
interesting, are the multiple amicus briefs filed by farsighted parties who see
the implications to their own interests in this matter.  So far, the who’s who of amici are (their
briefs are attached to the links):

There’s
no telling when we’ll see an opinion from the 8th Circuit, but for
those interested in pursuing their scholarship of the Commerce and Equal
Protection clauses would be hard pressed to find better resources.