Same Wine. Same Doorstep. Wrong State? B-21 Wines and Retailer Shipping

Updated November 5, 2026, with the Supreme Court disposition and additional briefs.

Same bottle. Same customer. Same doorstep. Buy from a local wine shop and the shipment can go through. Buy from an out-of-state retailer and North Carolina stops it at the border. That distinction sits at the heart of retailer wine shipping litigation. Compare North Carolina’s retail shipping privileges with its out-of-state shipping prohibition.

In B-21 Wines, Inc. v. Bauer, 36 F.4th 214 (4th Cir. 2022), a Florida retailer and North Carolina consumers challenged that disparity. North Carolina won, 2–1. Judge Wilkinson’s dissent supplies the better argument, in my view: why should regulating a shipment require excluding the retailer?

What the Fourth Circuit decided

The majority called the prohibition “an integral part of North Carolina’s three-tier system.” Local retailers purchase through North Carolina wholesalers; direct shipments from outside retailers would bypass that channel. Preserving that structure supplied the majority’s legitimate, nonprotectionist justification for the discrimination. Slip op. at 25–28.

The critical move appears in footnote 8. Because the majority treated the restriction as an “essential feature” of the system, it declined to examine the system’s effectiveness. That narrowed the inquiry into evidence and regulatory alternatives. Slip op. at 24 n.8.

Wilkinson’s dissent asks the practical question

Wilkinson answered: “Allowing imported wine does not necessitate allowing unregulated wine.” He proposed evenhanded licensing and compliance conditions instead of exclusion. Slip op. at 40 (Wilkinson, J., dissenting).

That distinction deserves more attention than another recital of the three tiers. Separating producers, wholesalers, and retailers addresses ownership and distribution. Favoring a retailer because its premises sit on one side of a state line adds a different restriction. Defending the first proposition should not automatically establish the second.

The Supreme Court supplied the governing instruction in Tennessee Wine & Spirits Retailers Ass’n v. Thomas: a discriminatory alcohol law needs justification as a “public health or safety measure or on some other legitimate nonprotectionist ground.” The Court also rejected “mere speculation” and “unsupported assertions.” 139 S. Ct. 2449, 2474 (2019), slip op. at 32–33 (discussing Granholm).

For me, the hard question follows: which particular safeguard requires excluding the outside retailer? Age verification, tax collection, reporting, inspection access, and consent to jurisdiction each deserve a concrete answer. Invoking a familiar regulatory structure cannot do all that work by itself.

Read the record, with its limits

The joint appendix at printed page 151 contains a useful Connecticut letter. In February 2020, its liquor-control director reported “no complaints on file” against issued out-of-state retailer permits. But Connecticut had issued only 13 permits, and its first permit dated to September 2019. That short experience warrants attention, not a sweeping claim that interstate shipping never creates problems. The appendix collects historical litigation evidence; it does not supply a current nationwide compliance survey.

What retailers, suppliers, and wholesalers should take from it

• Retailers: Separate permission to sell online from permission to ship into each destination state. A checkout page, a carrier account, or an adult-signature service does not supply the missing license.
• Suppliers and importers: Identify the seller of record and the fulfillment route before promising nationwide availability. Winery shipping privileges do not automatically extend to independent retailers selling the same wine.
• Wholesalers: Explain the specific compliance functions your distribution channel performs. If defending a restriction, connect it to evidence about taxes, traceability, enforcement, or public health.
• Anyone challenging a restriction: Build the record around workable alternatives and actual experience. Document permit conditions, audit access, tax remittance, delivery controls, and enforcement results. A persuasive constitutional argument needs operational detail.

What happened after the decision

The Fourth Circuit denied rehearing on June 28, 2022. The plaintiffs sought Supreme Court review, but the official docket for No. 22-285 records “Petition DENIED” on January 9, 2023. The Fourth Circuit’s judgment therefore survived; the denial supplied no Supreme Court merits opinion resolving the disagreement.

Wilkinson lost the vote. His distinction between regulating commerce and excluding competitors still deserves a careful read.

Download the opinions, briefs, and record

Start with the opinion and dissent, then compare the parties’ briefs. The linked PDFs below reside on Libation Law Blog. Briefs present advocacy; the appendix supplies record materials.

• Fourth Circuit opinion and Wilkinson dissent — June 1, 2022.
• Appellants’ opening brief — September 29, 2021.
• North Carolina’s response brief — November 29, 2021.
• Appellants’ reply brief — December 20, 2021.
• Center for Alcohol Policy and NC Association of ABC Boards amicus brief — December 6, 2021.
• Joint appendix — 374 PDF pages; approximately 69 MB.

Supreme Court proceedings, No. 22-285:

• Certiorari petition and appendix — includes the district court opinion and rehearing denial.
• North Carolina’s brief in opposition
• Petitioners’ reply brief
• National Association of Wine Retailers amicus brief
• Indianapolis Greek-American Wine Consumers amicus brief
• 41 Wine Consumers amicus brief

For background, read our coverage of the Michigan retailer-shipping litigation. Thanks to Paul Pisano and Alcohol Law Review for the original case lead.