Document: 384 U.S. 35 86 S.Ct. 1254 16 L.Ed.2d 336 JOSEPH E. SEAGRAM & SONS, INC., et al., Appellants,v.Donald S. HOSTETTER, etc., al. No. 545. Argued Feb. 23, 1966. Decided April 19, Rehearing Denied May 31, See 967, 1583. [Syllabus from pages 35-37 intentionally omitted] Thomas F. Daly, New York City, and Jack Goodman, Albany, N.Y., for appellants. Ruth Kessler Toch, appellees. Mr. Justice STEWART delivered the opinion of Court. 1 This appeal draws in question certain provisions Chapter 531, 1964 Session Laws York, which worked substantial changes State's Alcoholic Beverage Control Law. The appellants are distillers, wholesalers, or importers distilled spirits, who commenced this action a court an injunction declaratory judgment against appropriate state officials, upon ground that § 9 531 violates Federal Constitution several respects.1 trial upheld constitutionality law,2 its was affirmed by Appellate Division3 Court Appeals.4 brought case here,5 we now affirm Appeals. 2 enacted as result sweeping redirection York's policy regulating sale liquor State. For more than 20 years Law (hereinafter ABC Law) had required brand owners alcoholic beverages their agents to file with State Liquor Authority monthly schedules listing bottle price be charged wholesalers retailers within These were publicly displayed, sales prohibited except at listed prices.6 In 1950 amended addition section minimum retail each could sold consumers prices less those fixed schedules.7 enforcement these mandatory entrusted rather private action, but given no power determine reasonableness fixed. 3 1963, background irregularities extensive dissatisfaction operation Law, Governor appointed Commission study distribution sponsored various papers issued series reports recommendations.8 It found unequivocally compulsory resale maintenance 'no significant effect consumption beverages, temperance incidence social problems related alcohol.' also been victims serious discrimination because higher reduced competition fostered provision law.9 therefore recommended repeal provision,10 ultimate response legislature enactment 531. 4 did not stop, however, law.11 it imposed additional requirement filed must accompanied affirmation 'the * is lowest price' made anywhere United States during preceding month. principal object appellants' constitutional attack litigation. 5 Section effects paragraphs (d)—(k) 101—b, subd. paragraph (d), verified sell cover all owner, his agent, any 'related person.' (e), applies persons other need only elsewhere person filing schedule. (f), owners, agents, persons' owner agent (g), persons,' schedule.12 6 term person' defined (d) (f) include person, 'exclusive, business brands purchased from' agent. consequence, before wholesaler may particular retailer, he secure retailer part country doing 'substantial' owner. Thus, keep himself informed throughout States. 7 scheme rounded out (h), prohibits has filed; (i), requires 'lowest reflect discounts allowances retailers, exception taxes delivery costs; (j) (k), impose criminal penalties false affirmation. 8 As stays granted litigation, have yet put into effect. Our concern here, therefore, on face. many fronts. They contend place illegal burden interstate commerce, conflict federal antitrust legislation thus fall under Supremacy Clause, violate both Due Process Clause Equal Protection Fourteenth Amendment. We find contentions without merit. Consideration law intoxicating begin Twenty-first Amendment, second provides that: 'The transportation importation State, Territory, possession use therein liquors, violation laws thereof, hereby prohibited.' consistently held, 'That Amendment bestowed states broad regulatory over traffic territories.' v. Frankfort Distilleries, 324 293, 299, 65 661, 664, 89 L.Ed. 951. Cf. Nippert City Richmond, 327 416, 425, n. 15, 66 586, 590, 90 760. Just two Terms ago took occasion reiterate 'a totally unconfined traditional Commerce limitations when restricts intoxicants destined use, distribution, borders.' Hostetter Idlewild Bon Voyage Corp., 377 324, 330, 84 1293, 1297, 12 350. Board Equalization California Young's Market Co., 299 59, 57 77, 81 38; Mahoney Joseph Triner 304 401, 58 952, 82 1424; Ziffrin, Inc. Reeves, 308 132, 60 163, 128; Washington, 358 64, 79 116, 106. Indianapolis Brewing Co. Comm., 305 391, 59 254, 83 243; Finch McKittrick, 395, 256, 246. clear, operated area regulation liquor. foreign country, held circumstances forbid explicit supervision Customs Bureau, pursuant Congress commerce nations. Dept. Cal. Ammex Warehouse 378 124, 1657, 743; Collins Yosemite Park Curry 518, 1009, 1502. 10 Unlike Idlewild, present concerns York. situation, demands wide latitude decide whether mode chosen such ever constitute so grave interference company's operations make invalid Clause.13 Baldwin G.A.F. Seelig, 294 511, 55 497, 1032. No situation presented case. mere fact geared pricing policies sufficient invalidate statute. liquor, constitutionally insist domestic low offered country. discriminatory alleged outside largely matters conjecture. means instance, inevitably produce States, claimed appellants, lower sought will time enough assess extraterritorial arises clearly presents them. repercussions beyond lines judicial significance long domain forbids.' Osborn Ozlin, 310 53, 62, 758, 761, 1074. Hoopeston Canning Cullen, 318 313, 63 602, 87 777; South Carolina Highway Barnwell Bros., 303 177, 189, 510, 515, 734; 528, 502, 11 Moreover, Appeals observed, procedure followed comparable practiced 17 number, itself enterprise. Each monopoly told, distillers warrant least one adjust rebates purchasers elsewhere, taken positive precautions insure contractual commitments fulfilled.14 some respects gathering information warranties onerous affirmations 9, since generally very whereas conclude face unconstitutional commerce. 13 contention command needs extended discussion. argument based inconsistency between laws, specifically Sherman Act, 26 Stat. 209, amended, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1—7 (1964 ed.), Clayton 38 730, Robinson-Patman 49 1526, ed.). 14 areas coincident regulation, 'teaching Court's decisions enjoin(s) seeking conflicts where none exists.' Huron Portland Cement Detroit, 362 440, 446, 80 813, 817, 852. clear bare compilation, more, support would Act. Maple Flooring Mfrs. Assn. 268 563, 582—586, 45 578, 584—586, 69 1093; cf. American Column Lumber 257 377, 42 114, 284. imposes irresistable economic pressure Act order comply requirements 9. On contrary, appears firmly anchored assumption deter attempts preserve level conspiring raise Nothing course, prevent conspiracy. Although possible envision discriminations proscribed might compelled existence potential entirely too speculative posture conclusion foreclosed manner chosen.15 granting ample discretion modify schedule requirements.16 cannot presume exercise alleviate friction should chafe There remain consideration claims. they say, respects, first 'unreasonable, arbitrary capricious' them, statutory definition vague intolerable. And arbitrarily discriminates among segments industry. amounts claim deprivation due process law, s designed promote unwise, impractical, oppressive law. But province courts draw own views morality, legitimacy, usefulness statute bears heavily process. Under system government created our Constitution, up legislatures, courts, wisdom utility legislation. used strike down thought unreasonable, is, unwise incompatible philosophy. doctrine authorizes hold believe acted unwisely discarded. returned original proposition do substitute beliefs legislative bodies, elected pass laws. *' Ferguson Skrupa, 372 U.S 726, 728—730, 1028, 1030—1031, 93. 18 nothing motivated exclusively desire temperance.17 announced purpose eliminate 'discrimination disadvantage consumers' State.18 Frustrated unhappyexperience state-enforced placed exclusive price-fixing hands adopted core reform contemplated say unconstitutionally determined imposing relatively drastic grip loosened.19 variety cases sensitive control, maximum Nebbia People 291 54 505, 78 940; Townsend Yeomans, 301 441, 842, 1210; O'Gorman Young Hartford Fire Ins. 282 251, 51 130, 75 324; Gold DiCarlo, 380 520, 85 1332, 266. 19 person,' vague, includes exclusive, designated *.' vagueness centered 'principal substantial.' agree language invalid. Deputy Commissioner testified proceedings determination unclear, access ruling clarify issue.20 said Governors Reserve System Agnew, 329 449, 67 411, 415, 91 408, '* think plain if substantiality guide, limits administrative sufficiently definite ascertainable survive challenge grounds unconstitutionality.' Opp Cotton Mills Administrator, 312 126, 142—146, 61 524, 531—533, 624; Bowles Willingham, 321 503, 512—516, 64 641, 646—648, 88 892. Further, record indicates, structure industry even largest national deal through limited number wholesalers.21 Frequently, agrees distiller competing same range, potentially subject influence distillers.22 ascertaining satisfy criterion obtaining wholesalers. 21 come, then, Clause. That consumer label reduece scope respect persons.' 22 differentiations invidious discrimination. reasonably believed that, once reduced, non-'related follow suit. Nor necessary consumers. concluded adequately reductions accomplished though fair trade statute, permits agreements consumers, emerged unscathed 531.23 'A gone farther did, succeed bringing about tends produce.' Roschen Ward, 279 337, 339, 336, 73 722. '(T)he take step time, addressing phase problem seems most acute mind.' Williamson Lee Optical Okl., 348 483, 489, 461, 465, 99 563. 23 primary minor added 'irrespective delivery,' bring price-publicity provision, net paid seller,' publicity seller's profit margins.24 indication require unrelated observed regard provisions, concerned practices and, relevancy enforcement, good cause waive general prohibition absence schedules. reasonable expect administered sole regulate intrastate liquor.' N.Y.2d 47, 262 N.Y.S.2d 75, 82, 209 N.E.2d 701, 706. accept construction highest court. N.A.A.C.P. Button, 371 432, 328, 405. construed, serve legitimate interest borders. 24 reasons stated, infirmity amendments challenged appeal. specific future applications engender concrete dimension, consider arise. here considered, valid. Accordingly, affirmed. 25 Affirmed. APPENDIX TO OPINION OF THE COURT. 27 7. hundred one-b chapter eight ninety-nine nineteen forty-two, subdivision four thereof having five fifty-one forty-eight, read follows: 28 101—b. Unlawful prohibited; schedules; fund 29 3. (a) wine shall wholesaler, irrespective delivery, unless schedule, provided section, authority, then Such writing duly verified, copies form contain, item, exact name, capacity package, nature contents, age proof stated label, bottles contained case, seller, prices, individual item 'combination' quantity, any, payment, any. prior written permission authority shown inconsistent chapter. (1) brand, (2) selling licensed (3) approval event unable designate purpose. 30 (b) manufacturer retailers. 31 (c) Provided list owned retailer. 32 8. enacting eleven act, firm intention fundamental principles prevail manufacture, state, discriminated disadvantaged paying unjustifiably states, favoritism contrary best interests welfare people act provide basis eliminating state. forestall monopolistic anti-competitive frustrate elimination disadvantage, further declared subjected restrictions, prohibitions regulations, necessity nine matter determination. 33 Subdivision three seven add new paragraphs, 34 connection deemed set forth District Columbia, (or agency) owns operates stores, calendar month immediately filed. mean interest, direct indirect, stock security ownership, lender lienor, interlocking directors officers, franchise contract brands. (e) 36 (sic) 37 (g) (h) period covered 39 (i) determining excess rebates, free goods, inducements kind whatsoever be, purchasing Columbia; differentials allowance differences fees, actual cost delivery. paragraph, 'state fees' excise fees Columbia gallon 'gallon' twenty-eight fluid ounces. 40 Notwithstanding lieu penalty chapter, makes statement guilty misdemeanor, conviction punishable fine ten thousand dollars imprisonment county jail penitentiary six months imprisonment. Every every terms attorney district prosecute commission paragraph. prosecution general, appear deputy assistant grand jury powers perform duties proceeding otherwise authorized perform, him attending. 41 (k) Upon final after appeal, taken, expiration refuse exceeding person. pp. 51-52, infra. relevant 7, Appendix opinion. Misc.2d 956, 258 442. A.D.2d 933, 259 644. 75. 382 924, 316, 338. 1942, c. 899, 1, McKinney's Consol. Laws, 3—B, 3(a)—(d) (1946 1950, 689, 101—c Supp.). Legislative Annual 401—408, 484—489, 498—500 (1964); Breuer, Moreland Investigations York: 1907—65, 131—169 (1965). Commission's Study Paper Number ('Resale Price Maintenance Industry') Report Recommendations ('Mandatory Resale Maintenance') Based comparative data assembled, including examples wholesale Yorkers wre subsidizing $150,000,000 year. recommendations, relaxation restrictions package store licenses conditions establishments serving drink. 101 c, repealed Sellers advantage milder representation Appendix, Rule Authority, 65.7(e) (1965 Supp.), NYCRR 65.7(e). 101—b apply 3(c). 951, 'has plenary conduct boundaries.' Note, Versus Interstate Yale L.J. 815 (1946). executive vice-president 'We freely entered contracts f.o.b. states.' '(I)n e.g., Pennsylvania, plaintiffs warranting past quoted Pennsylvania current customer,' 'to purchaser, dealer, agency America." witness later '(A)s parcel offerings products in, example, 'if special cash commodity allowances, post-offs same' Board.' Chairman public hearing joint committee have, purchaser world. I purchase almost $400,000,000 worth year—one customer. swing big bit leverage, you convinced customer does offers (T)he them send accountants supplier's office do. corps suppliers' offices they're getting price. fact, not, place. dealing position vouching occupying status. Wisconsin Texaco, Inc., Wis.2d 625, 630—631, 111 N.W.2d 918, 921; Safeway Stores Oklahoma Retail Grocers Assn., 360 334, 342, 1196, 1202, 1280. Sections 3(a) provide: ('retailers' 101—b—3(b)) 246; intent expressed 531: (to consumers), determination.' portion provision. infra, p. 54. merit objection computation 3(i), sweeps broadly. intended circumvent established practice interpreting 'price' 'invoice amount actually realized seller transaction. 3(i) applied reflection idiosyncratic fluctuation happens price.' promulgate rules carry Seagram Sons, 'Of 330 sixteen per cent Sixty-one approximately brands; seventy-three cent; seventy-nine, sixty-four, thirty-seven, cent.' Borregard Glusker, Distilled Spirits Industry: A Marketing Survey 65—104, 133—163 (Yale School 1950); Oxenfeldt, 'Whiskey Prices,' Industrial Pricing Practices 445, 477, 483—486 (1951). Feld-Crawford 1940, 195, 3, General Business Consol.Laws, 20, 369-a—369-e. National Distillers Chemical Corp. Seyopp 12, 267 193, 214 361; R. H. Macy 51, 298; Fleischmann Distilling 977, 265 384; Victor Fischel N.Y.Sup.Ct., 154 N.Y.L.J. 95, (Nov. 17, 1965). Where inapplicable. 65.6(b)(3) 65.6(b)(3).

Category: 7