Cengage Advantage Books: Fundamentals of Business Law Today 10th Edition by Roger LeRoy Miller

Exercise 6

Maxwell's Pic-Pac, Inc. v. Dehner
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, 739 F.3d 936 (2014).
FACTS A Kentucky statute prohibits businesses that sell substantial amounts of staple groceries or gasoline from applying for a license to sell wine and liquor. This provision applies to retailers that sell those items at a rate of at least 10 percent of gross monthly sales. Maxwell's Pic-Pac (a grocer) and Food with Wine Coalition (a group of grocers) filed a suit in a federal district court against Tony Dehner, the commissioner of the Kentucky Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, and Danny Reed, the distilled spirits administrator of the Kentucky Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. The plaintiffs alleged that the statute and the regulation were unconstitutional under the equal protection clause. The court ruled in the plaintiffs' favor, and the defendants appealed.
ISSUE Are the statute and regulation rationally related to a legitimate government interest so that they can withstand a challenge under the equal protection clause?
DECISION Yes. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the judgment of the lower court. The appellate court held that the statute and the regulation were rationally related to a legitimate government interest in reducing access to products with high alcohol content.
REASON The court cited the problems caused by alcohol, including drunk driving, and noted that products with high alcohol content can make these problems worse. The state's interest in limiting access to such products extends to the general public, including "abstinent citizens" who "wish to avoid retailers that sell such drinks" and "inexperienced and impressionable" minors. Grocery stores and gas stations pose a greater risk of exposing members of the public to alcohol-the average person spends more time in grocery stores and gas stations than in other retail establishments. In addition, more minors work in grocery stores and gas stations than in other retail stores. For these and other reasons, the state can restrict these places from selling wine and liquor-"just as a parent can reduce a child's access to liquor by keeping smaller amounts in the house and by locking it in the liquor cabinet."
WHAT IF THE FACTS WERE DIFFERENT? Suppose that the state restricted packaged beer sales by bars but not breweries. Would this pass the rational basis test under the equal protection clause? Why or why not?