Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Assn. v. Thomas
2019 United States Supreme Court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Tenn. Wine & Spirits Retailers Ass'n v. Thomas?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
SHOW ALL QUESTIONS
Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Association v. Thomas, No. 18-96, 588 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case which held that Tennessee's two-year durational-residency requirement applicable to retail liquor store license applicants violated the Commerce Clause (Dormant Commerce Clause) and was not authorized by the Twenty-first Amendment.[1][2][3]
Quick Facts Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Association v. Thomas, Argued January 16, 2019 Decided June 26, 2019 ...
Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Association v. Thomas | |
---|---|
Argued January 16, 2019 Decided June 26, 2019 | |
Full case name | Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Association v. Russell F. Thomas, Executive Director of the Tennessee Alcoholic Beverage Commission, et al. |
Docket no. | 18-96 |
Citations | 588 U.S. ___ (more) 139 S. Ct. 2449; 204 L. Ed. 2d 801 |
Case history | |
Prior | Partial summary judgment granted, Byrd v. Tenn. Wine & Spirits Retailers Ass'n, 259 F. Supp. 3d 785 (M.D. Tenn. 2017); affirmed, Byrd v. Tenn. Wine & Spirits Retailers Ass'n, 883 F. Supp. 3d 608 (6th Cir. 2018) |
Holding | |
Tennessee's two-year durational-residency requirement applicable to retail liquor store license applicants violates the Commerce Clause and is not authorized by the Twenty-first Amendment | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Alito, joined by Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Kavanaugh |
Dissent | Gorsuch, joined by Thomas |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 3 |
Close