On October 1, 2025, the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) released its updated shutdown plan in the event of a lapse in federal appropriations; here is a link – Treasury_TTB_Lapse_Plan.

The plan makes clear that almost all of TTB’s core business functions will halt if Congress fails to pass a budget. Out of 459 employees, 398 would be furloughed, with only 61 retained to handle limited “excepted” activities—mostly tied to tax collection and protecting government property.

What Continues

• Processing of excise tax returns that include remittances
• Minimal computer operations to prevent data loss
• Protection of statute

…
Continue Reading TTB Publishes Shutdown Plan: What It Means for the Beverage Industry

A federal court in New York delivered a major win for beverage producers facing insurance disputes over barrel storage. In Vale Fox Distillery LLC v. Central Mutual Insurance Co., Judge Cathy Seibel held that a distillery’s insurance policy provided coverage when racks of aging whiskey collapsed, destroying more than $2.5 million worth of product.

The Whiskey Barrel Collapse at Vale Fox

Vale Fox Distillery, based in Poughkeepsie, invested years in its single malt program. In December 2023, racks holding sixty barrels gave way, sending whiskey crashing to the floor and damaging interior walls. Fifty-two barrels burst, erasing years of…
Continue Reading NY Distillery Wins Key Insurance Ruling on Barrel Collapse Coverage; Time to Check Your Coverage for This Issue

September marks the anniversary of the Seventh Circuit’s opinion in Miller v. Jos. Schlitz Brewing Co., decided on September 6, 1979. That ruling, together with the earlier Miller v. Heileman decision from 1977, locked in the principle that no brewer owns “light” or “lite.” These cases preserved industry-wide freedom to describe beer in plain English and clarified doctrines that still shape trademark law today.

We wanted to revisit them now—as we pass Schlitz’s anniversary—as a reminder of why every brewer can call a beer “light” or “lite” without fear of trademark exclusivity, and why these opinions remain touchstones in…
Continue Reading Lite vs Light in Beer: Why Two 7th Circuit Cases Keep the Terms Fair Game

It finally happened. New York courts have at last spoken clearly on a question that’s haunted distributors and suppliers for decades: do oral agreements between brewers and wholesalers fall under the protections of Alcoholic Beverage Control Law §55-c? In Oak Beverages, Inc. & Boening Bros., Inc. v. Yuengling, the Second Department answered yes. Oral arrangements and courses of dealing are covered. That’s the good news. The bad news for the plaintiffs in this particular case? Their lawsuit was tossed for failing to spell out the essential and material terms of their supposed distribution agreements.

The story: Yuengling pulls…
Continue Reading Oral Beer Distribution Agreements Do Get Franchise Protection and the Recent —Oak v. Yuengling Shows How to Plead Them

New York’s attempt to bake “home field advantage” into its cannabis licensing process just ran into a constitutional buzzsaw. In Variscite NY Four, LLC v. New York State Cannabis Control Board, No. 24‑384 (2d Cir. Aug. 12, 2025), the Second Circuit held that—even in a federally illegal market—the Dormant Commerce Clause still applies. New York cannot favor applicants with New York convictions, even under the banner of social or restorative justice.

The Licensing Rule: Extra Priority with a Twist

New York’s 2023 adult-use cannabis licensing rollout included multiple “pools” of applicants for provisional dispensary licenses. The December Pool—at the heart of Variscite—featured…
Continue Reading Second Circuit Brings State-Tied Restorative Justice Licensing Under Constitutional Scrutiny

A Manufacturer’s Fight, Not a Retailer’s

On August 4, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland refused to grant summary judgment in Furlong v. Brown, sending the case to a bench trial. The plaintiffs—two out-of-state breweries (Varietal Beer Co. from Washington, Vortex Brewing from Pennsylvania) and a Maryland consumer—are not fighting for retailer shipping privileges.

They are fighting for the right to deliver beer directly to Maryland consumers as manufacturers. That makes this case look more like Granholm v. Heald, where wineries challenged laws granting direct shipping rights only to in-state producers,…
Continue Reading Maryland’s Direct Beer Shipping Case Puts Granholm-Type Manufacturer Issue on Trial

A Decision Long in the Cellar

On August 5, 2025—nearly four years after oral argument—the Seventh Circuit uncorked its opinion in Chicago Wine Co. v. Braun, a Dormant Commerce Clause challenge to Indiana’s direct-to-consumer wine shipping restrictions. The opinion, delayed in part by the untimely passing of Judge Kanne (a panel member at argument), arrived as a per curiam ruling with separate concurrences from Judges Easterbrook and Scudder. Each judge traveled a different analytical route, but both reached the same destination: affirmation of Indiana’s statutory regime.

A per curiam opinion, for those outside the judicial vineyard, indicates an unsigned…
Continue Reading Seventh Circuit Uncorks Dual Rationales in Chicago Wine v. Braun, Affirms State’s Direct Shipping Ban

Two Courts, One Message: States Can Ban Intoxicating Hemp

In back-to-back rulings, the Fourth Circuit and now the Eighth Circuit have rejected challenges from hemp businesses seeking to invalidate state bans on hemp-derived THC products like delta-8, delta-10, THCA, and HHC.

Despite relying on different legal analyses, both courts came to the same conclusion: the 2018 Farm Bill does not preempt stricter state laws regulating cannabinoids derived from hemp. These rulings are a wake-up call to hemp manufacturers, retailers, and beverage brands banking on the Farm Bill as a shield against growing state crackdowns.

Arkansas Hemp Law Upheld in Bio…
Continue Reading Farm Bill Hemp Preemption Fails: 4th and 8th Circuits Uphold State THC Bans in Bio Gen and Virginia Hemp Rulings

A May 19, 2025 opinion from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington (Seattle Division) offers a compelling lesson for wineries and wine producers on how disputes over defective wine intersect with commercial liability insurance. The decision in Goose Ridge LLC et al. v. The Ohio Casualty Insurance Company, Case No. 2:24-cv-01058, illustrates how factual ambiguity can allow a winemaker’s insurance claim to proceed past summary judgment.

Winery Contract Disputes and Insurance Coverage: The Background

Goose Ridge LLC and Goose Ridge Vineyards LLC had two key contracts with wine brand K Vintners: a Custom Winemaking Agreement…
Continue Reading Federal Court Allows Winery to Pursue Insurance Claim in Defective Wine Coverage Dispute