Real Threats to State Regulatory Authority and Local Decision Making Abound
Some online alcohol sellers, big box retailers, international alcohol suppliers and professional plaintiffs are using distant federal courts to remove the existing state-based system of safeguards. They are challenging a state’s ability to decide how, when and where alcohol is sold in their local communities, and they are burdening federal courts with lawsuits. Some of these big suppliers and retailers are trying to sell alcohol in the U.S. like it is sold in other countries – where there is less accountability and less local influence over alcohol-related decisions. Their goal is to undermine state and local laws so they can sell larger volumes of alcohol at low or below cost prices.
Local decision making about alcohol is important because it includes the ability to issue ordinances, limitations and zoning to dictate where and when alcohol is sold. This is what allows certain communities to prohibit liquor stores from popping up next to schools, churches or daycare centers. Countries like the U.K., Russia, China and India – where there are systemic alcohol problems – do not have an effective system that keep alcohol decisions at a level that reflects the needs and desires of local citizens.
Since 2005, more than half of the states have faced challenges in federal courts that threaten their authority to regulate alcohol and their ability to maintain a licensed system of alcohol controls. In a time of fiscal crisis and skyrocketing state budget deficits, these lawsuits put private profits ahead of the public interest and force states to spend scarce resources.
Several court decisions threaten to dismantle today’s effective system of local alcohol controls, including laws that:
-
inhibit illegal sales to minors
-
ensure that all intoxicating liquor is lawfully sold through licensed vendors
-
curb overly aggressive marketing and consumption
-
achieve the effective collection of taxes
-
establish an orderly, accountable and transparent distribution and importation system.
Unelected judges in federal courts who are unfamiliar with the needs of local communities are interpreting the same laws differently and issuing conflicting rulings, which demonstrates judicial confusion about the true intent of Congress. The CARE Act of 2011 removes this ambiguity and makes Congress’ intent clear regarding the states’ intended lead in alcohol regulation.
States That Have Been Sued:
For further context on what this litigation means, visit www.alcohollawreview.com.
