Whether a state liquor law that allows in-state retailers to ship wine directly to consumers but prohibits out-of-state retailers from doing so, is invalid under the nondiscrimination principle of the Commerce Clause or is a valid exercise of the state's Twenty-first Amendment authority to regulate the sale of alcoholic beverages within its borders

QUESTION PRESENTED In Granholm v. Heald, 544 U.S. 460 (2005), this Court applied the nondiscrimination principle of the Commerce Clause to invalidate a state liquor law that allowed in-state wineries to ship directly to consumers but prohibited out-of-state wineries from doing so. In Tenn. Wine & Spirits Retailers Ass’n v. Thomas, 139 S.Ct. 2449 (2019), this Court applied the nondiscrimination principle to invalidate a state liquor law that allowed residents to obtain retailer licenses but prohibited nonresidents from doing so. Despite these precedents, the Sixth Circuit in this case did not apply the nondiscrimination principle to a Michigan liquor law that allows in-state retailers to ship wine to consumers but prohibits out-of-state retailers from doing so. Instead, it held that the restriction was a valid exercise of state authority under the Twenty-first Amendment that was immune from Commerce Clause scrutiny. The question, upon which the courts of appeals disagree, is: Whether a state liquor law that allows in-state retailers to ship wine directly to consumers but prohibits out-of-state retailers from doing so, is invalid under the nondiscrimination principle of the Commerce Clause or is a valid exercise of the state’s Twenty-first Amendment authority to regulate the sale of alcoholic beverages within its borders.