Wine drinkers in the Empire State still can't buy wine directly from out of state, in a decision released July 1 by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The ancient NY regulatory system was allegedly designed to guard against the interference of organized crime in the booze business, which ought to confuse the heck out of anyone who just wants to pick up a few nice bottles from wine.woot.com.

Arnold's Wines v. Boyle, as the case is known, pitted two New Yorkers and an Indiana wine retailer against the New York State Liquor Authority. (Daniel Boyle is the chairman of the Board and is listed as the lead defendant in that official capacity.) They were jointly suing to have the sections of the Alcohol Beverage Control Law barring direct-to-consumer sales ruled unconstitutional.

However, the court didn't see it that way (PDF available here), citing the second section of the 21st Amendment (the one that concluded Prohibition). That clause states that "The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited" -- in other words, whatever laws may apply to other commerce, booze remains an exception until the legislature decides otherwise.

Other states have lately taken a more enlightened opinion. Kansas and Tennessee have both changed their laws to allow direct sales from wineries to consumers. Both new laws went into effect last Wednesday. Interestingly, a federal appeals court had ruled earlier this year that Tennessee's previous rules banning direct shipment of wine were unfair to out-of-state competitors. Under the new Tennessee rules, any winery with a $300 license can ship up to three cases per year to a given consumer; in Kansas, the limit per consumer is 12 cases; wineries must register with the Secretary of State for $36, pay $100 in license and applications fees, and post a $750 bond.

All this confusion -- Kansas and Tennessee's move to a limited direct-buying structure leave just over a dozen states still putting up absolute obstacles to direct wine sales -- may eventually cause higher laws to feel compelled to revisit such liquor laws. R. Corbin Houchins, writing for the ShipCompliant blog, says, "Divergent interpretations at the intermediate level slowly increase the probability of high court review" of Granholm v. Heald, a 2005 decision that affirmed each state's right to control alcohol distribution.

On the other hand, says Mitch Frank (writing for WineSpectator.com), it's quite possible that that bird has flown. "For New York wine lovers," he writes, "Wednesday's ruling may mean very little. Many out-of-state retailers continue to ship to consumers despite the law, which has proved hard to enforce." Students of history who remember the disastrous effect the 18th Amendment had on social perceptions of the law -- including the glamorization of bootleggers and other organized crime -- a result like that is as bitter as a bottle of cheap chardonnay.