This is actually a comment I left on my previous post of Beer Law: Getting Growlers Filled in California but I thought it was interesting enough that it warrants its own blog post. The comment Andreas left was regarding federal regulations regarding growlers that are different than California's law.
Here are my thoughts:
The federal government can certainly make laws under the commerce power, meaning goods that cross state lines (even components that make up those goods) can be regulated. Hypothetically you could have all the ingredients for the beer and the water from California, and the glass made out of sand from California, and all the brewing and manufacturing done in California, and the beer drank in California; then it could be argued that the federal laws do not apply, and only the California laws apply. It may seem like a silly hypothetical, but there is a case making its way to the United States Supreme Court about a gun made in Montana by Montana materials, and the argument is federal gun laws do not apply to this gun.
Another thing about federal regulations is that in the United States we have two sovereigns. We have a system of federalism. One sovereign is the federal government, the other sovereign is the state government. Within the federal government we have checks and balances between the branches, but we have another type of balancing with "federalism" which is the balance of power between the federal government and the states. For example, there is no federal police power in the Constitution. We have ICE agents, but those aren't really part of the police power, they're part of the federal government's power to regulate immigration. I bring this up to make the point that any power that is not expressly delegated to the federal government in the constitution (i.e. the police power) is reserved for the states. Bringing this full circle, Congress can create national beer laws under its constitutional commerce power, but states can make their own beer laws because the power to regulate beer is not expressly delegated to the federal government.
That means we end up with two beer laws from our two sovereigns. When I quickly glanced at the federal regulations from the link I noticed that those regulations are careful to note that states can have their own laws. If California thinks its better for consumers to have safer growlers they can impose a stricter standard than the federal law. Which law applies? In short, they both do. This happens all the time. For instance, the EPA regulates air quality for car emissions, but California imposes its own emissions standards that are more strict.
I definitely would like to do some more research into what the federal government requires, but that is my quick response using some stuff I learned in my law school constitutional law class.
DISCLAIMER: This blog entry is not legal advice and I am not an attorney. This is for informational purposes only. If you are seeking legal advice for a particular situation you should consult with an attorney licensed in your state.
When you pass the bar are you going to switch your disclaimer to "This blog entry is not legal advice and I am an attorney."
ReplyDeleteit would be interesting to find cases that pertained to the topic discussed in the blog article.
ReplyDeleteI would say that in most cases that the state law would be upheld.
Here is another question, are there different laws or regulations pertaining to breweries that sell growlers versus microbreweries that have to sell bottled/ canned beer to stores.
I remember in "Beer Wars" they explained the distribution model of beer that Budweiser, Miller, and Coors had created forcing brewers to sell to distributors that would then sell to stores thus creating a system of checks and balances. Would a brewery selling me a growler be going against this system or do they fall under a different area of selling/ distribution?