>Logic would dictate to remand to lower courts and advise that there cannot
>be any economic protection and let each state decide what to do. That said
>since that is pretty much where it is today why did they decide to hear the
>case?

Haven't the lower courts been inconsistent in the "in state vs. out of state
wineries" question? I believe that one decision said it was okay to
discriminate against out of state wineries, ie allow direct shipping for in
state wineries, and disallow it for out of state wineries. Other decisions have
said that states could not discriminate.

Given that the Supreme Court wants the plaintiffs to confine their arguments to
this question, it sounds like the Court wishes to rule on this narrow question.


I suspect the Supreme Court will continue to allow state to regulate alcohol
sales and distribution, but will rule that states cannot treat out of state
wineries differently than those located in state. In this case, states could
still choose to disallow all direct shipping.

I don't see how this case has anything to do with other issues, eg. Roe vs
Wade, Christianity, or even internet sales in general?

It is unlikely the Court will accept Michigan's claim that the three-tier
system promotes competition. There is not an economist outside the liquor
industry who would support such a position. But I don't think the Court is
trying to rule (at least in this case) whether the three-tier system stifles
competition.

Tom Schellberg