One nation, under the influence

Cross posted at Political Arguments.

Nunc est bibendum! SCOTUSBlog explains the US Supreme Court's intoxicating jurisprudence on the shipment of wine, and provides the relevant links to today's opinion in Granholm v. Heald. (Via Mr. Baude.) From the syllabus:

This Court has long held that, in all but the narrowest circumstances, state laws violate the Commerce Clause if they mandate “differential treatment of in-state and out-of-state economic interests that benefits the former and burdens the latter.” Laws such as those at issue contradict the principles underlying this rule by depriving citizens of their right to have access to other States’ markets on equal terms.
[...]
Section 2 of the Twenty-first Amendment does not allow States to regulate direct shipment of wine on terms that discriminate in favor of in-state producers.
[...]
The Twenty-first Amendment’s aim was to allow States to maintain an effective and uniform system for controlling liquor by regulating its transportation, importation, and use. It did not give States the authority to pass nonuniform laws in order to discriminate against out-of-state goods, a privilege they never enjoyed.

For the locals who are wondering, this means that Sam's Wines and Spirits is safe, although it may still be sketchy.

As for the court's reasoning, from what I've read, I have no qualms with it. It seems eminently reasonable to interpret the Twenty-First Amendment in a way that is consistent with the rest of the Constitution, especially the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce. The second clause of the Twenty-First Amendment allows a state the option of controlling the consumption of alcoholic beverages in its territory. But in-state liquor gets you just as happy as out-of-state liquor and, as the Court pointed out today, there's no connection between the provenance of alcohol and its inebriating qualities. Any argument to the contrary is protectionist babble.