October Term 2018 · Docket 18-96

Does Tennessee's residency rule for liquor licenses violate the Commerce Clause?

Tennessee requires out-of-state residents to live in the state for one year before buying a liquor license. Out-of-state retailers argue this rule discriminates against interstate commerce.

Official caption
Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Assn. v. Blair
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Mr. Dvoretzky argued the Twenty-First Amendment restored state powers over alcohol.

    Mr. Franklin argued states have complete control over liquor distribution systems.

    Mr. Phillips argued the history of alcohol regulation supports state residency rules.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

Tennessee law requires a person to live in the state for one year before purchasing a liquor license. Out-of-state retailers claim this rule violates the Commerce Clause. Tennessee argues the Twenty-First Amendment grants states broad control over alcohol distribution.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on January 16, 2019.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Out-of-state retailers want the Court to strike down the residency requirement.

Tennessee wants the Court to uphold the residency requirement.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Out-of-state retailers argue the rule discriminates against interstate commerce.

Tennessee argues the Twenty-First Amendment allows states to control alcohol distribution.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Sotomayor asked the side that brought the case to clarify their position.

Justice Alito asked if a ten-year residency requirement would be constitutional.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case determines whether states can restrict who may buy liquor licenses. It affects interstate commerce in the alcohol industry. It defines the scope of state power under the Twenty-First Amendment.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON