Washington brewers challenge Oregon’s distribution laws

It’s a bit of a quid-pro-quo situation. If you’re a brewer located outside of Oregon, you can ship malt beverages direct to consumers (DTC) in Oregon only if you're licensed in a state that permits Oregon licensees to make DTC malt beverage shipments to its residents. If your license was issued by a state with no such互惠协议，就像俄勒冈州的北部邻国华盛顿一样，俄勒冈州不会向您颁发直接的托运人许可证。因此，三名华盛顿酿酒商正在起诉俄勒冈州。

2022年7月26日提起的民事诉讼实际上对俄勒冈州的两项单独政策的合宪性提出了质疑：

1. Oregon allows in-state beer producers to sell, deliver, and ship beer directly to consumers but prohibits out-of-state beer producers located in Washington from doing the same

2. Oregon allows in-state beer producers to self-distribute directly to Oregon retailers but prohibits out-of-state breweries from doing the same

Hat tip to the Washington Beer Blog for the link to the complaint,案例3：22-CV-01086-SI.

在Granholm v. Heald（2005年5月），美国最高法院裁定，密歇根州和纽约通过允许州内的酿酒厂向本州的消费者开货量来歧视州际贸易，但禁止州外酿酒厂做。相同的。此案并非直接涉及互惠，但这些原则也许可以应用于俄勒冈州的DTC啤酒政策。

The Granholm decision didn’t require Michigan and New York to allow DTC shipments from out-of-state wineries — it merely said they couldn’t discriminate against interstate commerce by treating in-state and out-of-state businesses differently. The states could offer direct shipping licenses either to both in-state and out-of-state producers (level up), or to neither (level down).

Granholm was a catalyst for change. Following the decision, the wine industry worked with state legislatures to eliminate reciprocal requirements for DTC wine shipping. Yet the beer industry didn’t do the same, perhaps because direct shipping for beer was less widespread at the time. It still is: Just10个州和哥伦比亚特区许可DTC啤酒运输today, so breweries have access to less than17%21岁或更高的人口。相比之下，酿酒厂可以直接运送到大多数州的消费者，并可以使用大约97％的美国人，足以食用酒精。

Whether by intent or oversight, when俄勒冈州立法者取消了对葡萄酒的互惠要求andestablished a direct shipper permitfor wine (effective January 1, 2008), they left the reciprocal requirement for malt beverages on the books. (俄勒冈州不允许DTC发货.)

Washington doesn’t allow either in-state or out-of-state producers to ship beer directly to consumers in the state.

格兰霍尔姆决定的原则也可以应用于俄勒冈州的啤酒分销政策，尽管这个问题可能会更加复杂。

俄勒冈啤酒生产商可以将他们直接生产的啤酒自分配给俄勒冈州的本地（全部和有限），以及非原始销售许可证和其他由OLCC许可的零售机构。参见ORS§471.200和 §471.221.

然而,随着华盛顿酿酒商正确解释in in the suit, breweries located outside of Oregon “cannot directly distribute beer to Oregon on-premises sales licensees and other retail establishments.” See ORS §471.404.

This used to be the case with out-of-state wineries, as well, but just as they赢得了运送DTC的权利在俄勒冈州，州外酿酒厂获得了申请的权利Oregon self-distribution permit. And just as breweries did not pursue DTC privileges in Oregon, they did not add the right to self-distribute in the Beaver State.

The plaintiffs want to be able to self-distribute to Oregon establishments so they can avoid going through a wholesaler. According to the suit, “Self-distribution, if allowed, would be at great cost savings to Brewery Plaintiffs, all such similarly situated Washington breweries, and the retail establishments which purchase their products.”

Just so it’s clear, the suit says the plaintiffs “intend to pay all taxes that may be due on such interstate and self-distribution shipments and to comply with all other non-discriminatory state laws and regulations, including obtaining licenses if one were available.”

华盛顿酿酒商相信他们会赢their case — both the DTC issue and the self-distribution issue — but they don’t think it will happen quickly. “This lawsuit may take 3–5 years to litigate, but we are going to win,” says Justin Leigh, co-owner of one of the plaintiffs and a practicing attorney. “There’s really no question. The State of Oregon can’t overcome what’s called ‘strict scrutiny’ … because Oregon’s laws are, on their face, discriminatory.” That kind of conviction should help carry him through what promises to be a lengthy process.

然而，还有另一种选择：他们可以在DTC问题上获胜，但在自分配问题上输了。当然，他们可能会输给两者。

我们将密切关注此案，并在Avalara税务台报告任何有趣的事态发展。同时，请查看这篇文章：爱达荷州是DTC葡萄酒运输的倒数状态吗？