This is the home page for the Michigan wine direct shipment case, Granholm v. Heald, formerly known as Heald v. Engler, maintained by Prof. James A. Tanford, one of the attorneys involved in that litigation.

Contact Mr. Tanford at
Contact co-counsel Robert D. Epstein at
Return to wine shipment litigation home page .
Last updated: August 8, 2005.

The case is back in the District Court for the entry of an order. A status conference has been called for Sept. 1, 2005.

Proceedings in the Supreme Court

Cert granted: The Supreme Court granted cert on May 24, 2004 as follows:
03-1116. Granholm v. Heald
03-1120. Michigan Beer & Wine Wholesalers v. Heald
03-1274. Swedenburg v. Kelly
The petitions for writs of certiorari are granted limited to the following Question: "Does a State's regulatory scheme that permits in-state wineries directly to ship alcohol to consumers but restricts the ability of out-of-state wineries to do so violate the dormant Commerce Clause in light of Sec. 2 of the 21st Amendment." These cases are consolidated and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument.

Oral argument -- The case was argued on Dec. 7, 2004 at 10:00 am. The transcript of the argument is available by clicking here .

Decision in favor of consumers and wineries announced on May 16, 2005
1) Court syllabus
2) Opinion by Justice Kennedy, joined by Justices Scalia, Souter, Breyer and Ginsburg
3) Dissent by Justice Thomas, joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Stevens and O'Connor
4) Dissent by Justice Stevens, joined by Justice O'Connor


1. Petitioners' Brief on the merits by Michigan

2. Petitioners' Brief on the merits by Wholesalers

3. Amicus briefs supporting Petitioners (State of Michigan)
a) Michigan Assoc. of School Principals et al.
b) National Beer Wholesalers
c) National Conference of State Liquor Administrators
d) Brief of 33 state attorneys general
e) Wine and spirits wholesalers of America
f) Illinois Alcoholism Assoc .

4. Joint appendix

5. Respondent's (consumers and out-of-state winery) brief on the merits

6. Amicus briefs supporting Respondents
a) Wine Industry brief
b) The Wine Institute brief
c) The Congressional Wine Caucus brief
d) Brief by Nobel Prize winning economists
e) Brief by five states favoring free trade
f) Napa Valley Vintners (history of 21st Amendment)
g) Cargo Airline Assoc brief (FedEx)
h) DKT Liberty Project brief
i) Brief by e-bay and other merchants
j) Goldwater Institute brief

7. Petitioners' Reply brief by Michigan.

8. Petitioners' Reply brief by Wholesalers.

9. Petitions for certiorari
a) Petition for certiorari filed Jan. 30, 2004, by the state of Michigan
b) Petition for certiorari filed February 2, 2004, by the Michigan Beer & Wine Wholesalers.
c) Brief of Amicus National Alcoholic Beverage Control Assoc . in support of cert, filed Feb. 26.
d) Amicus Brief of Ohio and 35 other states in support of cert, filed March 5.
e) Respondents' brief in opposition , filed April 5, 2004.
f) A reply brief by the Wholesalers was filed April 23. The state filed its reply brief April 28.

10. The Record
a) Complaint
b) Unreported district court decision

c) Evidence submitted by Plaintiffs
Expert witness affidavit from Russell Bridenbaugh
Answers to interrogatories by J Stewart, chair of the Liquor Control Commission
Affidavit of Plaintiff Domaine Alfred, Inc.
Affidavit of Plaintiff Bonnie McMinn [affidavits of other plaintiffs are all similar]
Siegl affidavit
Stonington Winery affidavit [other wineries submitted similar affidavits]

d) Evidence submitted by State of Michigan
Wirthlin Alcohol Survey
Eleanor Heald's answers to interrogatories
Ray Heald's answers to interrogatories
Bonnie McMinn's answers to interrogatories [answers of other plaintiffs are similar]
Smith Affidavit
Mead Affidavit
Pride Affidavit and exhibit
Wendt Affidavit

Proceedings in the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals

1. Plaintiffs' Brief

2. State's Brief

3. Wholesalers' Brief

4. Plaintiffs' Reply

5. Opinion of 6th Circuit .

Proceedings in the District Court

1. Amended Complaint

2. Answer

3. Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment
4b. Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Support
4c. State's Memorandum in Opposition
4d. Wholesalers' Memorandum in Opposition
4e. Plaintiffs' Reply

5a. Plaintiffs' Affidavits by Heald, Arundel, Brown, McMinn, Stein, Horwath, Christina, Hopkins, Stonington, Eberle, O'Keefe, Domaine Alfred, Siegel
5b. Plaintiffs' expert affidavit
5c. Defendants' motion to strike affidavits
5d. Defendant's memorandum in support of motion
5e. Plaintiffs' memorandum in opposition
5f. Defendants' reply

6a. Defendants' affidavits from Pride, Wendt, Smith, and Mead
6b. Defendants exhibits on taxation of remote sales, alcohol use by minors, and a statement by Sen. Hatch
6b. Plaintiffs' motion to strike exhibits
6c. Memorandum in support of motion
6d. Defendants' response

4a. State's motion for summary judgment
4b. Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Opposition
4c. State's Reply
4d. State's supplemental brief

5a. State's supplemental motion for summary judgment against Domaine Alfred
5b. Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Opposition
5c. State's Reply

6a. Wholesalers' Motion to Dismiss
6b. Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Opposition
6c. Wholesalers' Reply

7a. Wholesalers' Supplemental motion to dismiss
7b. Plaintiffs' memorandum in opposition

11a. Motion by State Universities to file amicus brief
11b. Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Opposition
11c. Order granting motion
11d. State Universities' Amicus Brief

12. Amicus brief by Interfaith Council

12a. Judgment of the district court
12b. Opinion and order (unpublished)

13a. Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration
13b. Order denying motion

14. Plaintiffs' notice of appeal