CONSTITUTIONAL LAW --TWENTY-FIRST AMENDMENT AND ITS EFFECT ON THE COMMERCE CLAUSE AND EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE AS APPLIED TO LIQUOR

Authors

William Stout Gordon, University of Michigan Law SchoolFollow

Abstract

Plaintiffs were granted an injunction in the lower court restraining the enforcement of the California Alcoholic Beverage Control Act on the ground that it violated the commerce clause and the equal protection clause of the Federal Constitution. The act imposed a license fee of $500 for the privilege of importing beer, in addition to the $50 fee to be paid by all wholesalers for the privilege of selling the beer. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision and held that the Twenty-first Amendment withdrew the protection of the commerce clause from liquor and that there was no denial of equal protection of the laws because "a classification recognized by the Twenty-first Amendment cannot be deemed forbidden by the Fourteenth," and, moreover, that the classification rests on conditions requiring a difference in treatment. State Board of Equalization of California v. Young's Market Co., 299 U.S. 51, 57 S. Ct. 77 (1936).

Recommended Citation

William S. Gordon, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW --TWENTY-FIRST AMENDMENT AND ITS EFFECT ON THE COMMERCE CLAUSE AND EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE AS APPLIED TO LIQUOR, 35 Mich. L. Rev. 1006 (1937).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol35/iss6/14