Opinion ID: 151352
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The District Court's Interpretation

Text: The district court here considered the Texas Personal Import Exception, which authorizes individuals to import alcohol for their own use. One section prohibits importation unless authorized. TEX. ALCO. BEV. CODE § 107.05. That section is then made inapplicable to Texas residents who import for personal use not more than one quart of liquor, three gallons of wine, or twenty-four twelve-ounce bottles of beer. Id. § 107.07. There is no direct limit on how much can be purchased, only on how much can be imported. These provisions were held by the district court to discriminate against out-of-state retailers because they prohibit consumers from purchasing wine from out-of-state retailers in unlimited quantities. Siesta Vill. Mkt., 530 F.Supp.2d at 868. The remedy was to allow out-of-state retailers to apply for Texas retail permits, even without the retailers' opening a location in the State. Any retailer with a Texas permit and making sales at locations outside of Texas could not be limited in sales volumes when those limits do not apply to Texas permit holders making sales inside Texas. The district court also held that the Texas local shipping rights were discriminatory. The court held the relevant question to be whether there was discrimination with respect to access to in-state markets,  and there could be no exception for de minimis levels of discrimination. Id. at 864 (emphasis in original). The disability imposed on out-of-state retailers was not a mere practical consequence of location, as it might be if Texas permitted only over-the-counter sales of alcohol. Since Texas allowed in-state retailers to ship alcohol, there was no practical reason why out-of-state retailers could not also. Id. at 865-66. Shipping was the key, because shipping was as easily done from outside the State as from within. Having found the Texas laws discriminatory, the court turned to the question of whether the State could show legitimate local purposes, not obtainable by nondiscriminatory alternatives, to justify the discrimination. We do not ultimately reach that analysis, so we do not summarize it here.