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):
- TheAmerican Beverage Licensees in support of Missouri;
- TheMissouri Wine and Spirits Association in support of Missouri;
- TheMissouri Beverage Co., in support of Southern;
- TheMissouri and National Beer Wholesalers Associations in support of Southern; and
- TheAttorneys General of Delaware, Nebraska, West Virginia, South Dakota,
Mississippi, Texas and Arkansas in favor of Missouri.
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.