Legal Opinion

Russell Bridenbaugh v. Karen Freeman-Wilson, Attorney General of Indiana

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Decided September 13, 2000No. 00-1044, 00-1046PublishedCited by 49 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge.

This case pits the twenty-first amendment, which appears in the Constitution, against the “dormant commerce clause,” which does not. Section 2 of the twenty-first amendment provides: “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.” This directly authorizes state control over imports, while the premise of dormant commerce clause jurisprudence is an inference that the grant of power to Congress in Art. I § 8 el.…

2Cases cited28 opinions

  1. Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  2. Ex Parte YoungSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
  3. Allen v. WrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  4. Craig v. BorenSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  5. Mugler v. KansasSupreme Court of the United States · 1887

23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by49 opinions

  1. Granholm v. HealdSupreme Court of the United States · 2005
  2. Michelle Lane v. Eric Holder, Jr.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2012
  3. Freeman v. CorzineCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2010
  4. Dickerson v. BaileyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2003
  5. Alabama Alcohol. Bev. Bd. v. Henri-Duval WinerySupreme Court of Alabama · 2004

44 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API