
<a href="https://reason.com/2025/08/07/how-protectionist-wine-and-liquor-laws-violate-the-constitution/" target="_blank">View original image source</a>.
The wine debate is heating up in Indiana, and it has nothing to do with what pair of shoes to wear at the vineyard. The 7th Circuit recently upheld a law that prohibits out-of-state retailers from shipping wine directly to consumers in the Hoosier State. This flies in the face of Supreme Court decisions aimed at preventing states from discriminating against out-of-state businesses. Buckle up, it’s about to get legal in here!
At the heart of this case is a principle known as the “Dormant Commerce Clause.” Essentially, it’s supposed to keep states from putting up barriers to interstate trade. You’d think this meant Indiana’s law would be toast, especially since the Supreme Court has smacked down similar laws before. Yet here we are, with some judges unable to agree on why this outdated law should still stand. It’s like watching a legal version of “Survivor,” with judges trying to outlast each other’s arguments!
But let’s be real: how big of a deal is it that a Chicago wine shop can’t ship you a bottle? While this might not seem like the most pressing issue on your lunch break, it highlights a significant point—a state’s right to control commerce shouldn’t come at the cost of consumer choice. So, should states really be able to dictate where your favorite bottle comes from? It’s a thought-provoking question that could stir up a whole barrel of opinions.
As the dust settles on this legal drama, it’s clear that mixing booze with wine laws makes for a potent cocktail of confusion. With judges disagreeing and consumer rights at stake, it’s a story worth following—one that might just leave a bitter aftertaste for Indiana residents. What do you think? Should residents have the right to order wine from anywhere in the country? Let’s hear your thoughts!
To get daily local headlines delivered to your inbox each morning, sign up for newsletter!