The United States Supreme Court is considering a case that could reshape how Americans purchase wine, potentially opening up access to a wider selection and lower prices. Day v. Henry centers on an Arizona law that prevents residents from receiving direct wine shipments from out-of-state retailers. The National Association of Wine Retailers (NAWR) has filed an amicus brief urging the Court to hear the case, arguing that the existing regulations unfairly restrict consumer choice and shield local businesses from competition. This case builds upon previous Supreme Court rulings regarding interstate wine commerce, but a “circuit split” among federal appeals courts has created legal uncertainty, making a definitive ruling from the nation’s highest court increasingly crucial.
The core of the dispute lies in Arizona’s three-tier system for alcohol distribution, a common framework across many states. This system separates producers, distributors, and retailers, with the intention of regulating alcohol sales and promoting responsible consumption. Arizona’s law requires that retailers have a physical presence within the state before they can ship wine to Arizona residents. This effectively blocks many out-of-state retailers from directly reaching Arizona consumers. The case arrives after landmark decisions in Granholm v. Heald (2005) and Tennessee Wine & Spirits Retailers Association v. Thomas (2019), which challenged state discrimination against interstate wine commerce. These earlier rulings established that states cannot unfairly favor in-state wine businesses over out-of-state ones, but the application of these principles to retailers remains contested.
The legal battle began when Arizona residents Reed Day and Albert Jacobs sought to purchase wine from out-of-state retailers who lacked a physical presence within the state. On September 25, 2025, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Arizona’s law, reasoning that it was a legitimate component of the state’s three-tier system. The court’s decision effectively sided with Arizona’s argument that the law was a valid exercise of its regulatory authority. However, the NAWR and other advocacy groups contend that such laws are protectionist measures that stifle competition and harm both consumers and independent retailers.
The Circuit Split and the Necessitate for Clarity
The disagreement over the legality of these types of shipping restrictions isn’t limited to Arizona. Courts across the country have reached differing conclusions regarding whether the 21st Amendment – which grants states broad authority to regulate alcohol – permits states to discriminate against out-of-state retailers. Some courts have demanded evidence that such laws serve a legitimate public health or safety purpose, while others have accepted states’ claims at face value. This inconsistency has created a “circuit split,” leaving retailers and consumers uncertain about the legal landscape. Tom Wark, executive director of the NAWR, highlighted the confusion, stating that inconsistent standards in states like Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, and Rhode Island make it challenging for businesses to operate compliantly. Wark urged the Supreme Court to clarify whether states can defend discriminatory shipping bans simply by labeling them as part of their three-tier system.
The Three-Tier System: A Historical Overview
The three-tier system, established in the wake of Prohibition, was designed to prevent the consolidation of power within the alcohol industry and to promote responsible alcohol sales. It separates the production, distribution, and retail of alcoholic beverages, aiming to prevent the types of abuses that led to the repeal of Prohibition. While proponents argue that the system protects public safety and prevents underage drinking, critics contend that it creates artificial barriers to entry and limits consumer choice. The debate over the system’s continued relevance in the 21st century is central to the Day v. Henry case.
Arguments For and Against Arizona’s Law
Supporters of Arizona’s law maintain that it is a necessary measure to regulate alcohol sales and prevent access by minors. They argue that maintaining control over the distribution chain allows the state to effectively enforce its alcohol laws. Opponents, however, argue that the law primarily protects wholesalers and local retailers from competition, leading to higher prices and limited selection for consumers. The NAWR’s amicus brief asserts that these restrictions stifle innovation and restrict access to a wider variety of wines. The organization argues that consumers should have the freedom to purchase wine from any legal retailer, regardless of its location.
Several organizations have joined the NAWR in urging the Supreme Court to review the case, including the Manhattan Institute and the Reason Foundation, as well as consumer wine advocacy groups. These groups contend that the current patchwork of state laws hinders Americans’ ability to purchase the wines they desire from outside their state. They argue that a uniform national standard would benefit both consumers and retailers, fostering a more competitive and efficient market.
Previous Supreme Court Rulings and Their Impact
The Day v. Henry case builds upon two pivotal Supreme Court decisions. In Granholm v. Heald (2005), the Court ruled that states could not discriminate against out-of-state wineries by prohibiting their direct shipments to consumers while allowing in-state wineries to do so. This decision struck down discriminatory laws in several states and opened up new markets for out-of-state wineries. Six years later, in Tennessee Wine & Spirits Retailers Association v. Thomas (2019), the Court extended this principle to wine retailers, further dismantling state protectionist measures. However, despite these rulings, many states continue to maintain restrictions on direct wine shipments from out-of-state retailers, leading to the current legal challenges.
What’s Next for Day v. Henry?
As of February 19, 2026, the Supreme Court has not announced whether it will grant certiorari – meaning agree to hear – the case. The Court typically receives thousands of petitions for certiorari each year and only accepts a small fraction of them. If the Court does decide to hear the case, oral arguments are likely to be scheduled in the fall of 2026, with a decision expected in the spring of 2027. A ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, Day and Jacobs, could compel Arizona to allow direct wine shipments from out-of-state retailers, potentially setting a precedent for other states with similar laws. Conversely, a ruling upholding Arizona’s law would reinforce states’ authority to regulate alcohol sales within their borders, even if it means restricting interstate commerce.
The outcome of Day v. Henry will have significant implications for the wine industry, consumers, and state governments alike. It represents a crucial test of the balance between states’ rights and the principles of free trade. For now, Arizona residents remain unable to receive direct wine shipments from retailers located outside the state, while industry groups continue their efforts to seek change through the highest court in the land.
The Supreme Court’s decision in this case will undoubtedly shape the future of wine distribution in the United States. We will continue to follow this case closely and provide updates as they become available. Share your thoughts on this important legal battle in the comments below.
