Appellate Court Ruling Strikes Blow Against State’s Arbitrary Beer Label Ban

A Message from John Hinman: This post is part of our “guest blogger” series.  Today’s guest blogger is the Chief Counsel of the Legal Studies division of the Washington Legal Foundation. Glenn was struck by the parallels between our current cases and the Flying Dog Brewery First Amendment crusade to both approve their “Raging Bitch” label and to recover monetary damages from the actual regulators who withheld approval of their label.  The fact that regulators could be personally liable for First Amendment violations should cause them to think twice before enforcing bans on First Amendment protected conduct. Our unresolved First Amendment cases, which are currently at various stages in the ABC administrative hearing process, include multiple Bottlerock 2013 accusations, as well as a Grape Escape accusation over Facebook posts and an accusation brought against a retailer for giving coffee, waffles and a gift bag to the first customers visiting a store during a grand opening.

-John                  
          

Appellate Court Ruling Strikes Blow Against State’s Arbitrary Beer Label Ban

April 29, 2015
Glenn G. Lammi, Washington Legal Foundation

In part II of his informative Booze Rules series on commercial speech and alcoholic beverages, John W. Edwards II referenced a recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit decision involving Flying Dog Brewery. This commentary takes a closer look at Flying Dog Brewery v. Michigan Liquor Control Commission, which is a positive, albeit slightly flawed, precedent on arbitrary enforcement of speech restrictions.

Michigan’s Liquor Control Commission (LCC) rejected approval for Flying Dog’s Belgian IPA, Raging Bitch, in November 2009, ruling its label “contains such language deemed detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of the general public.” During the April 2010 appeal hearing, an LCC commissioner elaborated on the decision, stating “we don’t believe in censorship . . . but we also are placing a product in front of ten million people . . . of all ages from children on up” (our emphasis). Three months later, the LCC denied Flying Dog’s appeal.

Flying Dog filed suit against the commissioners individually, alleging that the rule LCC had relied upon was constitutionally invalid. Prior to the federal district court’s ruling on Flying Dog’s preliminary injunction motion, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Sorrell v. IMS Health, a case involving content-based restrictions on commercial speech. In reaction to Sorrell, the LCC rescinded the rule that Flying Dog’s suit challenged, and approved Raging Bitch for release in Michigan. LCC had likely hoped the approval would put an end to the brewery’s lawsuit, but Flying Dog carried on its claim for damages. The district court, however, dismissed the suit, ruling that qualified immunity protected the commissioners.

Flying Dog appealed to the Sixth Circuit, arguing that qualified immunity did not apply because the commissioners violated its First Amendment rights and those rights were “clearly established at the time the conduct occurred.” The three-judge panel unanimously found that the commissioners were “on notice that banning a beer label based on its content would violate the First Amendment” unless they could satisfy the exacting judicial test for such speech restrictions. The judges split, 2-1, however, on whether the commissioners violated Flying Dog’s constitutional rights. The majority sent the case back down to the federal district court, which would assess whether the commissioners could justify their actions.

In dissent on that issue, Judge Karen Nelson Moore explained why the appeals court should have found a First Amendment infringement on the record before them. Judge Moore’s dissent reads very much like a majority opinion.  It provides background on the suit and the legal issues being considered in a level of detail that is normally only seen in a majority opinion. One suspects that Judge Moore had originally drafted the opinion for the majority, but at some point lost Senior Judge Martha Craig Daughtrey’s vote on the First Amendment violation issue (Judge Jane B. Stranch ultimately authored the majority opinion).

Judge Moore analyzed the labeling ban under the “Central Hudson test” that John Edwards discussed in Part I of his Booze Rules series. Her analysis of whether the commissioners were advancing a “substantial governmental interest” reveals their ever-shifting reasons for banning Raging Bitch. Those reasons included that the label was “offensive”; “promiscuous”; “obscene”; undermined temperance; “promotes sexism”; and was contrary to “the physical and psychological well-being of minors.” Judge Moore wondered whether instead of being actual state interests, those justifications were simply “post-hoc rationalizations developed for federal courts.” Nevertheless, because she would find a First Amendment violation on other grounds, Judge Moore assumed that the commissioners were advancing a substantial state interest.

The commissioners failed the third and fourth parts of the Central Hudson test, Judge Moore wrote, because they “present[ed] no evidence whatsoever that observing the phrase ‘Raging Bitch’ on the label of a beer bottle would increase alcohol consumption, harm the physical or psychological well-being of minors, or pose a danger . . . to Michigan citizens.” Her elaboration on this conclusion is impressively detailed and definitive.

Judge Moore deserves applause for offering such an extensive constitutional analysis from which the federal district court can (and should) crib extensively if the case does continue on remand. It is unfortunate that her reasoning is contained in the dissenting, rather than the majority, opinion, but it nonetheless offers valuable guidance to future litigants who challenge equally arbitrary commercial speech restrictions.

Flying Dog should also be commended for continuing its First Amendment challenge even after Michigan withdrew the offending rule and approved Raging Bitch. The company’s CEO, Jim Caruso, told the Baltimore Sun, “We are pursuing this not for the [monetary] damages but because of the behavior . . .This will set a precedent that I think will be useful nationwide.” And so it will.

Other breweries, wineries, and distilleries will surely agree that the best outcome of Flying Dog Brewery v. Michigan Liquor Control Commission would be that they won’t themselves ever have to spend the time and money the Frederick, Maryland craft brewery invested to fight paternalistic speech restrictions.
 

Glenn G. Lammi is Chief Counsel of Washington Legal Foundation’s (WLF) Legal Studies Division.  WLF is a national, non-profit public interest law and policy center.  It devotes significant resources to advancing and defending commercial speech rights.  Mr. Lammi also edits WLF’s blog, the WLF Legal Pulse.

  1. Pernicious Practices (stuff we see that will get folks in trouble!) Today’s Rant – Bill & Hold
  2. CBD: An Exciting New Fall Schedule… or Not?
  3. MISSISSIPPI RISING - A VICTORY FOR LEGAL RETAILER TO CONSUMER SALES, AND PASSAGE OF TITLE UNDER THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE
  4. California ABC's Cannabis Advisory - Not Just for Stoners
  5. NEW CALIFORNIA WARNINGS FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND CANNABIS PRODUCTS TAKE EFFECT AUGUST 30, 2018, NOW INCLUDING ADDENDUM REGARDING 2014 CONSENT AGREEMENT PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS
  6. National Conference of State Liquor Administrators – The Alcohol Industry gathers in Hawaii to figure out how to enforce the US “Highly Archaic Regulatory Scheme.”
  7. Founder John Hinman Honored with the Raphael House Community Impact Award
  8. ROUTE TO MARKET AND MARKETING RESTRICTIONS - NAVIGATING REGULATORY SYSTEM CONSTRAINTS
  9. Alcohol and Cannabis Ventures: Top 5 Legal Considerations
  10. ATF and TTB: Is Another Divorce on the Horizon? What’s Going on with the Agency?
  11. STRIKE 3 - YOU REALLY ARE OUT! THE ABC'S STRICT APPLICATION OF PENALTIES FOR SALES TO MINORS
  12. TTB Temporarily Fixes Problem with Fulfillment Warehouse Tax Credits - an “Alternate Procedure” for Paying Taxes & Reporting
  13. CUSTOMERS WHO HAVE HAD ONE TOO MANY - THE FREE TRANSPORTATION DILEMMA
  14. The Renaissance of Federal Unfair Trade Practices - Current Issues and Strategies
  15. ‘Twas the week before New Year’s and the ABC is out in Force – Alerts for the Last Week of 2017, including the Limits on Free Rides
  16. Big Bottles, Caviar and a CA Wine Strong Silent Auction for the Holidays!
  17. The FDA and the Wine and Spirits Industry – Surprise inspections anyone?
  18. NORTHERN CALIFORNIA WILDFIRES: UPDATED REGULATORY AGENCY DISASTER RELIEF RESOURCES AT A GLANCE
  19. NORTHERN CALIFORNIA WILDFIRES: REGULATORY AGENCY DISASTER RELIEF RESOURCES AT A GLANCE
  20. Soon to come to your Local Supermarket– Instant Redeemable Coupons of the digital age!
  21. The License Piggyback Dilemma – If it Sounds Too Good to be True, it Probably is
  22. A timely message from our Florida colleagues on the tied house laws, the three-tier system and the need for reform
  23. ABC Declaratory Rulings – A Modest Proposal Whose Time has Come
  24. More on FDA Inspections - Breweries, Distilleries and Questions
  25. WHY THE FDA IS INSPECTING WINERIES
  26. Senate Bill 378—The Proposed Demise of Due Process for Alcohol Licensees
  27. ABC Enforcement - Trends and Predictions
  28. The Corruption Chronicles – Volume One: A New Hope
  29. New Alcohol Delivery Oversight on the Horizon
  30. Michigan: Canary in the DtC Coal Mine?
  31. California ABC and Federal Credit Laws – Active Enforcement and Lots of Questions!
  32. Big Bottles For The Holidays - The Highest Calling Of The Winemaker's Art
  33. FINAL COMMENTS TO TTB NOTICE 160 DUE ON WEDNESDAY DECEMBER 7TH – WE ARE ASKING THE TTB TO EXTEND THE COMMENT PERIOD AGAIN TO ALLOW FOR INDUSTRY NEGOTIATION AND ALIGNMENT OF INTERESTS
  34. SONOMA COUNTY WINERY USE PERMITS, EVENT RESTICTIONS AND DTC
  35. New TTB Labeling Requirement Regulations: Out-of-State Bottling Is Not Created Equal and Consumers Right to Know Where the Grapes in their Wine Come from is Compromised
  36. Isn't A Written Agreement With A Distributor Worthless In A Franchise State?
  37. Crowd Funding for Alcohol Producers and Retailers – Down the Rabbit Hole with the Tied House laws
  38. Everything you ever wanted to know about the BPA Warning Statement but were afraid to ask
  39. AB 2082 - A Hunting License for Police and a Lethal Weapon for Politicians that Deprives Licensees of Currently Available Due Process Rights
  40. “Better Late Than Never”-- Judge in Illinois Dismisses 201 Sales Tax Cases against Retailers
  41. The Day the Music Almost Died: The Story of the BottleRock ABC Accusations, the ABC Appeals Board and a Victory for a Common Sense Interpretation of the Tied House Laws
  42. The Arsenic in Wine Class Action Dismissal – what it means
  43. Counterfeit or Artisanal Mexican Spirits? Pick your Poison, or your lime wedge
  44. Warning - CA ABC enforcement teams are on the prowl this weekend!
  45. RELIEF AT LAST! ILLINOIS MOVES TO FIX THE SALES TAX LAWSUITS AGAINST OUT-OF-STATE SELLERS BUT PROPOSES TO PENALIZE WINERIES AND RETAILERS THAT SHIP WITHOUT PERMITS
  46. The TTB Speaks on Category Management or, be Careful What you Ask for Because you might Get it!
  47. Hinman & Carmichael LLP Announces the Addition of Jeremy Siegel to its team of top beverage law lawyers
  48. 2016 LEGISLATIVE UPDATES: Part IV
  49. 2016 LEGISLATIVE UPDATES: Part III
  50. 2016 LEGISLATIVE UPDATES: Part II
  51. 2016 LEGISLATIVE UPDATES: Part I
  52. Hinman & Carmichael LLP is Hiring!
  53. John Hinman Presents NBI Webinar on Basics of Alcohol Beverage Law
  54. ABC DISMISSES SAVE MART GRAPE ESCAPE ACCUSATION BUT REFUSES TO ADOPT JUDGE’S DECISION FINDING NO STRICT LIABILITY FOR ABC VIOLATIONS
  55. Speakeasies are still with us, and proliferating!
  56. The War for the Soul of Sonoma County – the Winery Working Group Battle
  57. Santa Claus isn’t the only one coming to town this Christmas!
  58. Arizona's Direct to Consumer Shipping Rules - An Exercise in Complexity
  59. AB 780 - Social Media and the ABC: The California Legislative “Fix” that Fails
  60. Illinois Finally Offers Certainty and Relief for Victims of Sales Tax Lawsuits, but Prompt Action is Required in Pending Cases
  61. A Modest Proposal – Adopt the federal rule on Tied-House liability in California
  62. The Grapes Escaped - Why the First Amendment Matters
  63. Appellate Court Ruling Strikes Blow Against State’s Arbitrary Beer Label Ban
  64. Illinois Attorney General's Office Announces Intention to Dismiss False Claims Act Against Liquor Retailers
  65. Commercial Speech And Alcoholic Beverages - Part III
  66. Commercial Speech And Alcoholic Beverages - Part II
  67. Craft Beverages: Social Media Marketing the Effective and Compliant Way
  68. Commercial Speech And Alcoholic Beverages - Part I
  69. A LAYPERSON LOOKS AT ARSENIC IN WINE
  70. The Biggest Retailer in the World vs. the TABC
  71. Rebecca Stamey-White presents Emerging Issues in Wine Law
  72. Top Beverage Alcohol Law Firm Adds and Elevates Partners
  73. Illinois Qui Tam Lawsuits—Private Enforcement Of a State Claim: A Bonanza For A Plaintiff’s Lawyer And A Rip-Off Of Retailers
  74. BOOZE RULES OF SOCIAL MEDIA: The Retailer Right to Pay Exception
  75. LIONS AND TIGERS AND TWEETS, OH MY!
  76. AB 2004: Brewer's Incremental Parity with Wine Makers
  77. Expanding, Proud Of It, and Wanting to Tell the World
  78. DC Weighs in Strongly on Third Party Marketer Delivery Services
  79. “Visual Links” between Beer, Wine and Spirits Labels and Retailers Ruled Unlawful in California — the tied house laws run amok
  80. Hard Cider Legislative Update
  81. New Marketing Model for New York – Lot 18 and the NYSLA
  82. Sweeping Changes in Proposed NYSLA Bill Include Expansion for Craft
  83. Minimum Resale Price Policies - How to Control Price-Cutters
  84. AB 2130 – Gloves Off?
  85. “Gluten-Free” Labels for Wine, Beer and Distilled Spirits. We’re Still Waiting.
  86. AB 1252: Sanitation Overkill?
  87. Growlers: Not Just for Beer Anymore
  88. California Legislative Roundup 2014
  89. Build It and They Will Come: Craft Products Get New Privileges in CA and TX
  90. AB 1128: Veto of the “Serve a Minor” Felony Penalty Bill, or How to Lose a Winery in One Sale
  91. California Grocers Association v. ABC, Part 2: California Appeals Court Vacates ABC’s Adoption of a Trade Advisory That Correctly Guided Licensee Conduct
  92. California Grocers Association v. ABC, Part 1: California Appeals Court Prohibits Alcohol Sales at Self-Check Out Stands
  93. AB 1128: The “Serve a Minor” Felony Penalty Bill, or How to Lose a Winery in One Sale
  94. The New York SLA and Online Wine Sales: A Work in Progress
  95. California SB 635: What the 4am Bill Really Means for California Communities
  96. Electronic Invoices in California: Welcome to the 19th Century
  97. The History of Amazon and Wine: What Has Changed?
  98. Third Party Marketing Checklist
  99. BOOZE RULES – PROMOTIONAL APPEARANCES AND AUTOGRAPHS
  100. Washington State: Down the Rabbit Hole of the Tied-House Laws