This blog was last updated on May 18, 2026

Proponents of retailer direct-to-consumer (DtC) wine shipping won a significant victory last Friday when the Sixth Circuit held that an Ohio law allowing DtC shipping only by in-state retailers is unconstitutionally discriminatory. 

The decision is the latest development in the long-running litigation over Ohio’s law, along with a series of challenges to in-state-only retailer DtC wine shipping laws nationwide, but it is the clearest victory for the plaintiffs to date. 

The ruling does not resolve the broader issue of retailer DtC wine shipping. Even the Ohio law’s fate remains uncertain as the Sixth Circuit remanded the case back to the lower court to determine the appropriate remedy. It is also likely that the state will seek en banc, or a review by the full court. 

Still, the opinion is notable if nothing else than for the rigor of its analysis. In recent years, courts addressing similar laws have often upheld them on limited reasoning, concluding perfunctorily that either the laws were simply not discriminatory or that their discriminatory effect was excused by the states’ broad 21st Amendment regulatory authority. 

The Sixth Circuit, by contrast, dutifully applied the Supreme Court’s framework for reviewing alcohol laws, as established in 2019’s Tennessee Wine and Spirits, and scrutinized the limited evidence offered by the state. Whether the ruling survives en banc review, how the lower court fashions relief on remand, or whether the Supreme Court will moot the whole issue by picking up a related case from the Ninthth Circuit, the decision reflects a more exacting review of state justifications. the decision reflects a more exacting review of state justifications. 

How did we get here? 

The dispute over retailer DtC wine shipping has persisted since the Supreme Court’s 2005 Granholm v. Heald decision, which held that state authority under the 21st Amendment is limited when it conflicts with other constitutional provisions, including the Dormant Commerce Clause. As a result, states that permit in-state DtC wine shipping must extend comparable access to similarly situated out-of-state parties, a framework that has led to today’s regulated DtC winery shipping market. 

The unresolved question was whether retailers are enough like wineries that the Granholm ruling would apply to them too. Ohio’s law has been challenged in some form since 2020, moving repeatedly through district and appellate courts. 

During that period, different courts around the country have often, though not uniformly, upheld similar state laws. Most of those rulings read perfunctorily, with the courts latching onto facile claims to rule in favor of the states, such as a lack of standing by the plaintiffs, or that the challenged laws are not discriminatory, or that any discriminatory effect they have is justified because the three-tier system is “unquestionably legitimate.” 

What’s new about the Sixth Circuit ruling? 

The most notable aspect of the decision is the court’s adherence to the Supreme Court’s established framework for reviewing alcohol laws and its more skeptical assessment of the state’s evidentiary claims. 

In Tennessee Wine and Spirits, the Supreme Court invalidated a state residency requirement for retailer licensees and articulated a two-part test for reviewing discriminatory alcohol laws: 1) can the law can be justified as a health and safety measure within the state’s 21st Amendment authority, and 2) is the law’s predominant effect to protect public health and safety or local economic interests? That is, alcohol laws that otherwise violate constitutional principles, such as open interstate commerce, can only stand if they are tailored to support the state’s public health and safety concerns.  

Many courts, including the lower court in this case, gave that test little more than cursory treatment. The Sixth Circuit, however, engaged with the analysis directly. 

First, the court declined to assume that because the three-tier system is “unquestionably legitimate,” any provision that seemingly contravenes it must be invalid. It noted that Ohio already permits several departures from the three-tier model, including DtC shipping and self-distribution by out-of-state wineries, undermining the claim that barring out-of-state retailers from shipping is an essential feature of the three-tier system. 

Next, the court found much of Ohio’s evidence supporting in-state enforcement powers unpersuasive or irrelevant. Rather than accepting the state’s assertions at face value, it emphasized that the state identified only one instance in which in-state enforcement was necessary. That example involved a slew of illegal activity, including bootlegging, and so was largely inapplicable to the question of regulating shipments from licensed retailers. 

The court also recognized, as the Supreme Court did in Granholm, that states have multiple tools to regulate out-of-state retailers on equal terms with in-state retailers. On that basis, it concluded that the state failed the second part of the test because less discriminatory alternatives are available. 

What’s ahead for DtC retailer shipping? 

As noted, the practical implications of the ruling remain uncertain. The en banc court could reverse; and the lower court could, on remand, remove the discriminatory effect by eliminating in-state retailer shipping privileges rather than extending them to out-of-state retailers. Alternatively, the legislature could step in and amend the law to be non-discriminatory, or the Supreme Court could resolve the issue nationally by taking up the Ninth Circuit case in the fall. However, if nothing else, the Sixth Circuit’s ruling will hopefully influence future courts—and potentially the Supreme Court—to examine these laws more closely.