Part I of this Note examines the current state of the law in the liquor affirmation area. Part II argues that the twenty-first amendment may not be invoked to justify the extraterritorial impact of these statutes. The amendment does not preempt the commerce clause in the liquor area. While it gives the states free rein over liquor internally, it provides no basis for any extraterritorial projection of liquor price regulation. Part III considers the commerce clause analysis of Brown-Forman and argues that any interstate effects of these statutes will cause them to violate the commerce clause. This section argues that the prospective-retrospective distinction is constitutionally irrelevant, and demonstrates that all variations on the liquor price affirmation theme have practical effects upon interstate commerce. No distinction based upon the time periods for which the statutes require national price uniformity is constitutionally sound.
Ward A. Greenberg,
Liquor Price Affirmation Statutes and the Dormant Commerce Clause,
Mich. L. Rev.
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol86/iss1/5