On Wednesday, January 9, 2019, Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) announced the leadership team of the Congressional Cannabis Caucus for the 116th Congress. In addition to Mr. Blumenauer, the Caucus will be co-chaired by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), Rep. Dave Joyce (R-OH) and Rep. Don Young (R-AK).

Mr. Blumenauer helped found the Caucus in 2017 with the goal of providing a bipartisan forum for discussing and collaborating on sensible federal cannabis legislation. The Caucus has a particular focus on harmonizing federal and state laws with regard to medicinal or adult-use of cannabis. The group also works to address issues related to researching cannabis, providing veterans access to medicinal marijuana and business needs, including reforming the tax code. Two of the founding co-chairs have since left Congress: Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), who lost his re-election bid in November, and Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO), who was elected governor of Colorado. Continue Reading Congressional Cannabis Caucus – 116th Congress

In late September 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a petition for a writ of certiorari (i.e. the Court agreed to hear a case) brought before the Court by the Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Association (Tennessee Retailers) in Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Association v. Byrd. The petition requested that the Court review the lower court’s decision upholding a finding that Tennessee’s two-year residency requirement for retail license applicants is unconstitutional. Specifically, the question Tennessee Retailers posed to the Court is whether the 21st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution gives states that authority to, consistent with the so-called “dormant” Commerce Clause of the Constitution, regulate sales of alcohol beverages by imposing residency requirements on retail (or wholesale) license applicants.

In this article, Mar Sorini and Bethany Hatef discuss the legal background of the dormant Commerce Clause, as well as the Byrd case. Particularly, they examined the Sixth Circuit’s opinion in February 2018 which affirmed the district court decision that invalidated Tennessee’s residency requirements, held that “a three-tier system can still function” without the two-year durational residency restriction imposed by the state. This article examines the potential impacts of Byrd, and how the Supreme Court’s review will address the constitutional validity of the Tennessee law imposing residency requirements on retail alcohol beverage license applicants.

Access the full article.

Originally published in Artisan Spirit: Winter 2018.

As you likely have read in the trade press already, on Wednesday, November 28, 2018, the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued its opinion in Lebamoff v. Rauner. The opinion adds three judges of the Seventh Circuit to the collection of legal minds rejecting the notion that the dormant Commerce Clause non-discrimination principles applied by the Supreme Court in Bacchus (1984) and Granholm (2005) should be limited to laws discriminating against producers and products.

Like other cases brought by Lebamoff and its legal team, this case involves a challenge to state laws that prohibit direct-to-consumer wine shipments by out-of-state retailers. Illinois, like many states, permits in-state retailers to deliver wine directly to Illinois consumers located anywhere in the state. The law, however, denies that same privilege to out-of-state retailers. This distinction, according to the plaintiffs, amounts to discrimination against out-of-state economic interests in violation of the Constitution’s dormant Commerce Clause.

The Seventh Circuit opinion rejects the reading of Granholm, embraced by the Second and Eighth Circuits, that the Supreme Court drew an implicit distinction between laws discriminating against producers and products (not permitted) and laws affecting the wholesale- or retail-tiers (immune from Commerce Clause scrutiny). Reading Granholm in its totality, the Seventh Circuit finds such an implied bright-line rule unlikely. Moreover, drawing on the Brown-Forman (1986) and Healy (1989) cases, the Seventh Circuit notes that prior Supreme Court opinions have applied dormant Commerce Clause principles to laws that did not regulate producers or products.

The Seventh Circuit, of course, recognized that its opinion could be substantially affected by the Tennessee Wine & Spirits Retailers Ass’n v. Byrd case now pending before the Supreme Court. Moreover, the Seventh Circuit’s discussion of issues upon remand suggests a number of potential distinguishing facts that could alter the outcome of the case. Nevertheless, should the Supreme Court affirm the Sixth Circuit’s Byrd decision, the state of Illinois will have a hard time defending the discriminatory treatment challenged in Lebamoff.

Earlier this year, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) proposed a new regulation that would require food manufacturers to disclose information about bioengineered (BE) food and BE food ingredients. The proposed rule is the result of a 2016 law that required the USDA to establish a National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard for all food. For purposes of the BE disclosure law, “food” includes alcohol beverages intended for human consumption as well as non-alcohol beverages.

Read the full article.

Originally published in The New Brewer, November/December 2018.

As beverage manufacturers mull the creation and distribution of cannabidiol (CBD)-infused products, the US Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) recent actions regarding an approved CBD drug merit exploration. CBD is one of many chemicals in the cannabis plant, and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has stated that CBD does not produce the same euphoric effect as tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), marijuana’s psychoactive component.

In June, FDA approved the first drug comprised of an active ingredient (CBD) derived from marijuana, Epidiolex. FDA approved the CBD oral solution for patients two years of age and older who have seizures associated with two forms of severe epilepsy. According to DEA and FDA, the CBD in Epidiolex is extracted from the cannabis plant and is a purified drug substance. Though it is derived from the cannabis plant, the FDA-approved drug has no more than 0.1 percent residual THC.

Last week, DEA announced an order scheduling Epidiolex under the least restrictive schedule of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), schedule V. Notably, DEA still considers marijuana (which includes industrial hemp) and marijuana compounds other than Epidiolex to be schedule I controlled substances under the CSA. As a result, beverage manufacturers should carefully consider all legal implications prior to developing products that contain CBD. Continue Reading DEA Schedules a FDA-Approved CBD Drug

Craft distillers know the value of a good trademark. The name of a particular spirit, a logo, or a label design can be vitally important to a brand’s identity (and a distiller’s bottom line).  They also know how complicated—and legally fraught—branding can be. For better or worse, trademark disputes involving alcohol beverage products are becoming increasingly common. The disputes that make it to court provide valuable insight that could prevent future legal headaches surrounding the selection, protection, and enforcement of alcohol beverage trademarks.

Read the full article.

Originally published in Artisan Spirit: Fall 2018.

The recent US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan opinion strikes down a Michigan statue and authorizes out-of-state retailers to sell and ship wine directly to Michigan consumers. Lebamoff Enterprises v. Snyder, E.D. Mich. Case No. 17-10191 (Sept. 28, 2018). More fundamentally, the Lebamoff decision underscores the stakes in the upcoming (as of September 27) Supreme Court review of the Sixth Circuit’s decision in Byrd v. Tenn. Wine and Spirits Retailers Ass’n.

The Lebamoff case involves 2016 legislation that amended Michigan law to: (1) make it easier for in-state retailers to ship directly to consumers by employing third-party carriers and (2) prohibit completely the sale and shipment of alcohol beverages to Michigan consumers by out-of-state retailers. The plaintiffs include an Indiana retail chain, its owner and several Michigan wine consumers.

The Lebamoff opinion first recaps the familiar dormant Commerce Clause analysis that: (a) asks whether the challenged law discriminates against interstate commerce or favors in-state interests over out-of-state interests; and (b) examines the state’s justifications for the law to see if they advance a legitimate local purpose that reasonable alternatives cannot adequately advance. Not surprisingly, the district court had little trouble concluding that the challenged law—which facially discriminates between in-state and out-of-state retailers—favors in-state interests and discriminates against interstate commerce. Continue Reading Recent Retailer Direct Shipping Opinion Illustrates Stakes in Upcoming Supreme Court Review

The “final word” may be in sight in a long-running dispute over state residency requirements imposed on applicants for retail alcohol beverage licenses as well as more fundamental questions about state powers under the 21st Amendment.

As anticipated last July in the Alcohol Law Advisor blog, a single sentence order of the US Supreme Court issued on September 27 granted a petition for a writ of certiorari filed by the Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Association (Tennessee Retailers) requesting the high court to review lower court decisions that invalidated Tennessee’s two-year residency requirement for retail license applicants.

Earlier this year, the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the Tennessee law at issue and held that, “a three-tier system can still function” without the two-year durational residency restriction imposed by Tennessee. The 6th Circuit quoted a 1984 Supreme Court decision: “The central purpose of the [Twenty-first Amendment] was not to empower States to favor local liquor industries by erecting barriers to competition.” The court went on to analyze the Tennessee restrictions and found that they violate the dormant commerce clause, a legal concept designed to prevent states from engaging in economic protectionism. Continue Reading US Supreme Court to Review State Residency Requirements

US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) expects to publish tomorrow Interim Regulations authorizing the refund of beer, wine, and spirits excise taxes in connection with the 2017 tax reform act’s reduced rates and credits. The Interim Regulations specify:

  1. Claims must be filed with the National Revenue Center of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB).
  2. Claims must be filed on TTB Form 5620.8.
  3. A separate claim is required for entries made at each US port or internal revenue region.

The interim regulations will be effective on the date of publication (expected to be August 16, 2018).

CBP also initiated a 60-day comment period that will provide interested parties with opportunities to raise questions or identify issues that are not addressed in the interim regulations.

Please let us know if you have any questions about this development.

As more states legalize the recreational use of marijuana, beer servers will undoubtedly face situations in which a patron is too impaired to drive due to the consumption of both cannabis and alcohol. State laws do not provide a crosswalk of breath alcohol concentration (BrAC) limits and nanograms per milliliter (ng/ml) of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in a driver’s body fluids. But a few states have established limits on the nanograms per milliliter (ng/ml) of THC that may be present in a driver’s blood or urine. States will continue to create and modify statutory and regulatory schemes focused on marijuana impairment. In doing so, state legislatures will likely revisit the policy discussions on limits for alcohol consumption.

Read the full article. 

Originally published in The New Brewer, July/August 2018.