The Supreme Court heard argument today in the cases raising the constituionality of state restrictions on the interstate shipment of wine. According to CNN:
Several justices appeared troubled by the notion of unequal treatment, although they also seemed uncertain about whether overturning state laws that have been in place since Prohibition was the solution.
Actually, that is precisely the correct solution. As I argued in my TCS column Bacchus Bytes Back:
The Supreme Court should strike down these antiquated special interest laws. As I recall my civics lessons, preventing economic Balkanization was one of the principal reasons the Founders replaced the Articles of Confederation with our present Constitution. Discriminatory state bans on direct-to-consumer sales represent precisely the sort of economic Balkanization that would have offended the Founders. These laws advance no legitimate state interests, but rather are designed solely to protect entrenched special interests. It is time for them to go.
Update: We are quoted in a MSNBC story on the Supreme Court case on the legality of state bans on interstate shipment of wine:
"It's the discrimination that's the critical problem with these statutes," said UCLA law professor Stephen Bainbridge.
