If you’ve ever chased a rare Burgundy only to be blocked by state lines like they’re the world’s least fun border patrol, you’re going to want a glass for this. An Arizona case, Day v. Henry, could be the one that nudges the US Supreme Court to finally clarify whether out-of-state wine retailers can ship to your doorstep. It’s legal déjà vu, and the stakes are very real for drinkers and shops alike.
Here’s the setup. Across seven federal circuits, consumers have sued states that let only in-state retailers ship wine to residents, arguing that those rules discriminate against interstate commerce. The Ninth Circuit (Arizona) doubled down with a 2-1 decision upholding Arizona’s restriction—so much so that it withdrew its first opinion and reissued a new one with the same conclusion. The dissent emphasized that citing the three-tier system isn’t enough; states need to show real health-and-safety benefits to justify discrimination against out-of-state retailers.
The constitutional tug-of-war isn’t new. On one side you’ve got the dormant Commerce Clause—basically, states shouldn’t play favorites. On the other, the 21st Amendment, which gave states control over alcohol after Prohibition. As the source reminds us: “The 21st Amendment does not mention a ‘three-tier’ system.” —Wine-Searcher. Yet the three-tier structure has become the default in most states, often invoked to block retailer shipping.
We’ve had two landmark Supreme Court mile markers already. In 2005, Granholm v. Heald said states couldn’t let in-state wineries ship while blocking out-of-state wineries. Then in 2019, Tennessee Wine & Spirits struck down residency requirements for liquor store owners, signaling (at least in oral arguments) that protectionist rules don’t fly under the Commerce Clause. Still, many states have kept their in-state presence rules for retailers because, well, “States really, really like regulating alcohol.” —Wine-Searcher.
Arizona’s appeal is interesting not just for the split but for timing. The Court’s makeup has shifted since 2019, with Ketanji Brown Jackson and Amy Coney Barrett replacing Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Predicting outcomes is a fool’s errand, but if the Court takes the case and most of the justices who sided against Tennessee’s residency rule hold their ground, retailer shipping could finally get its day—and maybe its freedom—under the sun.
From a consumer angle, the impact would be huge. Think broader access to small allocations, niche importers, and those one-off bottles you can’t find at your local shop. For retailers, especially independents that specialize in deep selections or rare finds, interstate shipping is the lifeblood of modern wine commerce. As Tom Wark of the National Association of Wine Retailers put it: “It is essential that the Supreme Court resolve this issue of the constitutionality of discriminatory state bans on wine retailer shipping,” —Tom Wark, via Wine-Searcher. He added, “Billions of dollars are on the line, not to mention the rights of American consumers to access the legal products they want.” —Tom Wark, via Wine-Searcher.
Of course, states aren’t likely to give up control without a fight. They’ll cite enforcement concerns—age verification, tax collection, and product tracking. Those are valid operational issues, but they’re solvable with tech and clear standards rather than blanket protectionism. If you can geofence a concert and deliver sushi in 30 minutes, verifying a 21+ delivery with tax remittance isn’t exactly moon-landing territory.
So what happens next? First, we wait to see if SCOTUS grants cert. The Court only hears about 60 cases a year, which makes the odds slimmer than a cold-climate Pinot. But the growing circuit split, plus the echo of prior rulings, might be enough to earn a slot.
If the justices do take it on, expect arguments to orbit familiar themes: whether physical-presence requirements are “an essential part” of the three-tier system or simply a barrier to interstate commerce; whether there’s meaningful evidence of health-and-safety benefits tied specifically to blocking out-of-state retailers; and how to reconcile the 21st Amendment with modern e-commerce realities. For fun historical color, remember: “Justice Anthony Kennedy called the three-tier system ‘unquestionably legitimate’.” —Wine-Searcher. Legitimate doesn’t necessarily mean immutable.
Bottom line: if you love discovering bottles beyond your zip code—or you run a shop with a passionate national customer base—this case matters. It won’t change the surf overnight, but it could reset the tide. In the meantime, support retailers that advocate for fair shipping laws, keep your ID handy for deliveries, and don’t lose hope. When wine access gets wider, palates get happier.
Source: https://www.wine-searcher.com/m/2026/01/wine-shipping-might-get-another-court-date
