Opinion ID: 2630537
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: The Webb-Kenyon Act

Text: Finally, the Distributors argue that Congress's reenactment of the Webb-Kenyon Act (27 U.S.C. 122) in 1935 is a conveyance to the states by Congress of the ability to regulate the importation of liquor, thus immunizing state liquor regulation from dormant commerce clause scrutiny. Opening Br. of Appellants/Mt. Hood at 21-22. The Webb-Kenyon Act preceded the Twenty-first Amendment and was its statutory counterpart. Bainbridge, 311 F.3d at 1110-11. It uses similar language to section 2 of that amendment. [9] The Eleventh Circuit concluded that the Webb-Kenyon Act and the Twenty-first Amendment must be read congruently. Bainbridge, 311 F.3d at 1110-11. That court reasoned Congress might decide to permit an otherwise unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce in one of two ways, either by ordinary legislation or by an amendment to the Constitution. It would be odd to say that the latterhere, the Twenty-first Amendmentdoes not immunize states from Commerce Clause scrutiny, but that the former does. Bainbridge, 311 F.3d at 1110-11. Because the Twenty-first Amendment is not an absolute shield to the commerce clause, as we analyze above, the Webb-Kenyon Act cannot be interpreted as a reconveyance of Congress's authority to regulate interstate commerce. Bainbridge, 311 F.3d at 1111. We adopt this reasoning. Thus, this argument fails.