Twenty-one years ago a tide shift began in alcohol sales when the U.S. Supreme Court opened the door to nation-wide shipment of wine by wineries in Granholm v. Heald. Today, the Court is poised to decide on whether it will take up a case that may extend similar constitutional protections nationwide to retailers. The case, Day v. Henry, centers around whether Arizona unconstitutionally allows the shipment of alcohol by in-state retailers, but not out-of-state retailers.
Direct shipping of wine and other alcoholic beverages has a long pedigree at the Supreme Court. In 2005’s Granholm v. Heald, the court found that state laws prohibiting out-of-state wineries from shipping to in-state consumers, while allowing in-state wineries to do so, were unconstitutional. The decision did not require states to allow direct shipping at all, but it held that if a state permits in-state wineries to ship directly to consumers, it must extend the same privilege to out-of-state wineries on equal terms. The ruling reshaped the national regulatory landscape for wine producers. Today almost every state, with the exception of Utah, authorizes some form of direct shipment of wine to consumers by wineries, though regulatory requirements vary widely. Laws allowing the direct shipment of distilled spirits remain far more limited, and direct shipping of beer is also subject to significant restrictions in many jurisdictions.
The Legal Question in Day v. Henry
Far fewer states allow shipments from retailers. Arizona is one of the states that allows such shipments, but only from in-state retailers. Day v. Henry hinges on this crucial distinction, just as Granholm v. Heald did in the producer context. The plaintiffs argue that allowing in-state retailers to sell or ship directly to consumers while excluding out-of-state retailers constitutes unconstitutional discrimination against interstate commerce. Arizona, by contrast, argues that its rules reflect lawful control over alcohol distribution and licensing within its borders.
Should the court deny certiorari, the lower court’s ruling that Arizona’s prohibition on out-of-state retailer shipments is lawful will remain in effect. Granting certiorari would mean the court agrees to hear the case in its upcoming term, with the potential to clarify how constitutional non-discrimination principles apply to alcohol retailers.
The Current Landscape for Retailer Shipping
Interstate shipping by retailers has remained far more limited than producer shipping. Currently, only about a dozen states and the District of Columbia authorize some form of interstate direct wine shipment by licensed retailers, typically subject to permit requirements and regulatory conditions. However, just as Granholm v. Heald reshaped the landscape for producers, Day v. Henry could do the same for retailers, should the court agree to hear the case and ultimately rule on the merits.
Certiorari Timeline and Potential Industry Impact
The court is currently accepting responses on the case’s certiorari petition, with a deadline of April 6 for all respondents. A final decision on whether the court will hear the case is most likely to come between May and June of this year, though it could be delayed if the justices take additional time to consider the petition. Should the court agree to hear the case in its next term, the alcohol industry could face another significant legal clarification regarding the scope of interstate direct sales.
FOCUS will continue to monitor developments on the direct shipment of alcohol in state legislatures across the country.
by Jordan White 2/23/26
