Skip to content
On Reserve
On Reserve

A Wine Law Blog

  • About Wine Law
  • About the Author
    • Author Bio
    • Appearances
  • Services
    • Permits
    • TTB
    • New York State
  • Contact
    • Standards
  • Reviews
    • December 2014
    • February 2015
    • February 2017
    • February 2018
    • August 2019
    • February 2020
    • April 2023
On Reserve

A Wine Law Blog

Seventh Circuit Denies Rehearing in Chicago Wine Co. Case: What It Means for Direct-to-Consumer Wine Shipping

Lindsey A. Zahn, September 9, 2025October 6, 2025

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently issued a per curiam decision denying a petition for rehearing en banc in the Chicago Wine Co. v. Indiana case. This ruling upholds Indiana’s law prohibiting out-of-state retailers from shipping wine directly to Indiana consumers and reinforces states’ authority to regulate alcohol distribution under the Twenty-first Amendment.

Background

The case originally arose when Chicago Wine Co., an out-of-state retailer, challenged Indiana’s restrictions on direct-to-consumer wine shipments. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Indiana, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed that decision. Judges Easterbrook and Scudder issued separate concurring opinions.

Key Takeaways from the Seventh Circuit Decision

  1. State Authority Under the Twenty-first Amendment
    The court emphasized that the Twenty-first Amendment grants states broad regulatory authority over alcohol distribution within their borders. This ruling reaffirms that states may impose physical presence requirements on alcohol retailers without running afoul of the Commerce Clause.

  2. Consistency with Other Circuits
    The Seventh Circuit’s decision aligns with rulings from the Third, Fourth, Sixth, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits, all of which have upheld similar state alcohol laws restricting out-of-state shipments.

  3. Impact on Out-of-State Retailers
    Out-of-state wine retailers wishing to ship to Indiana must comply with the state’s regulatory framework. The denial of rehearing en banc signals that the court is unlikely to revisit the case, meaning Indiana’s restrictions remain firmly in place.

  4. Broader Implications
    This case may influence challenges in other states with restrictive alcohol distribution laws. Industry members should carefully review compliance with state alcohol laws before attempting direct-to-consumer shipments.

Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit’s decision underscores the continuing importance of understanding both federal and state alcohol regulations, particularly for retailers and brands exploring direct-to-consumer sales. Compliance with these laws is essential to avoid legal exposure and ensure smooth operations across state lines.

For guidance on state-specific alcohol laws, direct-to-consumer shipping, or other regulatory issues affecting your wine, spirits, beer, or cider business, contact us at info@zahnlawpc.com. Our firm can help navigate complex alcohol distribution regulations and support your compliance efforts.

For questions related to alcohol beverage law, food labeling, regulatory compliance, or related matters, please contact Lindsey Zahn at Lindsey Zahn P.C. to learn more about how we can assist your business.

DISCLAIMER: This blog post is for general information purposes only, is not intended to constitute legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship results. Please consult your own attorney for legal advice.

Circuit Court Opinions Wine and Direct Shipment Wine Lawsuits current issues in wine lawdirect shipmentfederal courtretailer direct shippingretailers

Post navigation

Previous post
Next post

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe to On Reserve

Follow Us!

Follow Us on FacebookFollow Us on TwitterFollow Us on LinkedInFollow Us on RSS

Search Posts

Categories

Archives

Awards

©2025 On Reserve | WordPress Theme by SuperbThemes