Join The Coalition
You have been stripped of your right to access thousands of fine wines.
You had no voice to express your desire to retain this long held right to out-of-state wine shipments from retailers. Now there is HB 2462, a bill that will restore your access to fine wines but you must take immediate steps in support of HB 2462 now.
The IWCC has been formed solely to put the wine consumer first and to help restore your access to the wines you want!
Join the IWCC, write in support of HB 2462 and help put the wine consumer first.
•In 2005, in the case of Granholm v. Heald, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a state may not discriminate against out-of-state wine shippers in order to benefit in-state interests.
•Writing for the majority in Granholm v. Heald, Justice Anthony Kennedy made this point clear:
“Time and again this Court has 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.’ This rule is essential to the foundations of the Union…States may not enact laws that burden out-of-state producers or shippers simply to give a competitive advantage to in-state businesses. This mandate “reflect[s] a central concern of the Framers that was an immediate reason for calling the Constitutional Convention”
•Illinois law that allows consumers to have wine shipped to them from in-state wine stores but prohibits shipping to Illinois consumers from out-of-state wine stores discriminates in exactly the way the Supreme Court said it “may not”.
In early 2008, a Texas District Court reiterated in the case of Siesta Village Market v. Steen, that prohibiting consumers from buying from out-of-state retailers while allowing them to buy from in-state retailers did indeed violate the Granholm v. Heald Supreme Court ruling.
In August 2008, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Indiana, in the case of Baude v. Heath, the court wrote, “once a state allows any direct shipment, it has agreed that the wholesaler may be bypassed.” Illinois allows direct shipment by going around the wholesaler and directly to consumers by some entities, but is preventing all from going around the wholesaler.
"In September 2008, in the case of Siesta Village Market v. Granholm, a Michigan Federal Court Judge ruled that state's law that allows Michigan consumers to purchase and have shipped to them wine from in-state retailers but not from out-of-state retailers was unconstitutional, basing her decision on the 2005 Granholm v. Heald Supreme Court ruling. Michigan's discriminatory and unconstitutional laws are nearly identical to Illinois' anti-consumer wine shipping law."
Illinois is flaunting the clear intention of the U.S. Constitution and the Supreme Court of the United States for the purpose of protecting a very small minority of alcohol distributors and wine stores—all to the detriment of Illinois consumers.