Another federal court has weighed in on the ongoing war over direct-to-consumer wine shipping, and Ohio has scored a victory in Block v. Canepa. After a Sixth Circuit remand and a refusal by the Ohio Attorney General to seek Supreme Court review, the district court recently issued its final ruling, handing down a decision that upholds Ohio’s strict three-tier system and deals a significant blow to out-of-state retailers seeking access to the state’s consumers. You can read the latest opinion granting summary judgment to Ohio here.

The Background: The Laws at Issue

Ohio, like many other states, has adopted a three-tier alcohol distribution system that mandates a controlled flow of alcohol from suppliers to wholesalers to retailers, before it reaches consumers. At the heart of Block v. Canepa were two key provisions:

  1. The Direct Ship Restriction – Ohio law prohibits out-of-state wine retailers from shipping directly to Ohio residents unless they maintain a physical presence in the state.
  2. The Transportation Limit – Ohio consumers are barred from personally transporting more than 4.5 liters of wine (six bottles) across state lines in any 30-day period.

Plaintiffs—an Ohio wine consumer and an Illinois-based wine retailer—challenged these laws as unconstitutional under the dormant Commerce Clause, arguing that they discriminated against interstate commerce by favoring in-state retailers over out-of-state competitors.

The Sixth Circuit’s Remand

Initially, the district court had ruled in favor of the state, dismissing the challenge. But the Sixth Circuit, citing Tennessee Wine & Spirits Retailers Ass’n v. Thomas (2019), held that the lower court failed to adequately assess whether the laws were genuinely justified by non-protectionist purposes such as public health and safety. The appellate court directed the district court to conduct a deeper inquiry into whether Ohio’s restrictions were truly necessary or simply a guise for economic protectionism.

The District Court’s Final Ruling

Following remand, the district court conducted a full review of the evidentiary record, including supplemental discovery and additional briefing. The key takeaways from its decision:

1. The Court Rejected the Argument that the Laws Were Purely Protectionist

The court concluded that Ohio’s laws were part of a broader regulatory scheme designed to promote public health and safety rather than simple economic protectionism. It found that allowing out-of-state retailers to ship wine directly to Ohio consumers would undercut the state’s regulatory framework and disrupt its ability to monitor alcohol sales effectively.

2. Ohio’s Public Health and Safety Justifications Passed Muster

The state presented evidence that its three-tier system enables better oversight of alcohol sales, price controls, and tax collection. The Attorney General cited a case where Ohio authorities were able to track down and remove contaminated wine from the market due to their control over in-state distributors—something they argued would be impossible with unregulated out-of-state retailers shipping directly to consumers.

Additionally, expert testimony supported the notion that unrestricted direct-to-consumer wine shipping could lead to lower prices, increased alcohol consumption, and regulatory enforcement challenges.

3. The Court Dismissed Plaintiffs’ Evidence as Insufficient

The plaintiffs had attempted to counter the state’s arguments by pointing to studies suggesting that states allowing direct shipping have not suffered negative health or enforcement consequences. However, the court found this evidence unconvincing, in part due to its lack of direct correlation to Ohio’s specific regulatory interests and enforcement mechanisms.

4. The Physical Presence Requirement Stood Firm

The court acknowledged that the direct ship restriction functionally excludes out-of-state retailers but determined that it was a permissible means of enforcing Ohio’s regulatory scheme. Citing cases from other circuits, including Lebamoff v. Whitmer and Sarasota Wine Market v. Schmitt, the court concluded that such physical presence requirements have been upheld as valid exercises of state regulatory authority. Precedent, precedent, precedent…

Implications for National Wine Shipping Litigation

Ohio’s victory in Block v. Canepa contributes to the growing trend among federal courts regarding state laws that allow in-state retailers to ship to consumers but bar out-of-state retailers from doing the same.

  • The Fourth and Eighth Circuits have upheld similar restrictions, emphasizing states’ rights under the 21st Amendment to regulate alcohol.
  • The Ninth Circuit has allowed such laws and as we reported yesterday, may actually take up the issue in an en banc hearing.
  • The First Circuit recently upheld Massachusetts’ similar restrictions in Anvar v. Dwyer, further cementing a circuit split.
  • The Seventh Circuit has had a case pending before it since 2021 on the issue but has not issued an opinion.

Given these decisions, the Supreme Court may ultimately not have to step in and resolve the issue as the only real difference is as to what and when a state has to prove its laws protect health and safety, but no decisions seem to be coming out that those statutes restricting shipping to in-state retailers do not accomplish those goals.

What’s Next?

For now, Ohio’s restrictive laws remain in place, and out-of-state retailers looking to access the Ohio market will have to establish an in-state presence. However, this litigation is far from the last word on the issue. With lawsuits challenging similar laws in multiple jurisdictions, the battle over direct wine shipping is poised to continue.

Until then, Ohio consumers looking for rare wines from out-of-state retailers will have to find other, lawful, online sources—or take a trip across the border with no more than six bottles in tow.

The post Ohio’s Wine Shipping Battle: Block v. Canepa – A Final Blow in the District Court appeared first on Libation Law Blog.