John Paul Stevens

Name: North Dakota v. United States — Opinion of the Court
Author: John Paul Stevens

Summary

“North Dakota v. United States — Opinion of the Court”, is a work by John Paul Stevens. It explores elements such as liquor, North Dakota and regulations.

Quotes from North Dakota v. United States… (John Paul Stevens)

John Paul Stevens, North Dakota v. United States…

“ The State, which has established a liquor distribution system in order to promote temperance and ensure orderly market conditions, wishes to protect the integrity of that system by requiring out-of-state shippers to file monthly reports and to affix a label to each bottle of liquor sold to a federal enclave for domestic consumption. The clash between the State's interest in preventing the diversion of liquor and the federal interest in obtaining the lowest possible price forms the basis for the Federal Government's Supremacy Clause and pre-emption challenges to the North Dakota regulations. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John Paul Stevens, North Dakota v. United States…

“ The North Dakota regulations, however, do not require the military to submit to state control or to purchase alcoholic beverage from suppliers within the State or prescribed by the State. The DoD regulation has nothing to say about labeling or reporting by out-of-state suppliers.
When the Court is confronted with questions relating to military discipline and military operations, we properly defer to the judgment of those who must lead our Armed Forces in battle. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John Paul Stevens, North Dakota v. United States…

“ The Twenty-first Amendment is binding on the Government like everyone else, and empowers North Dakota to require that all liquor sold for use in the State be purchased from a licensed in-state wholesaler. Since letting the Government choose between purchasing label-free bottles from such wholesalers and purchasing labeled bottles from out-of-state distillers provides the Government with greater rather than lesser prerogatives than those enjoyed by other liquor retailers, the labeling requirement does not discriminate against the United States and thus does not violate any federal immunity. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John Paul Stevens, North Dakota v. United States…

“ Since a regulation imposed on one who deals with the Government has as much potential to obstruct governmental functions as a regulation imposed on the Government itself, the Court has required that the regulation be one that is imposed on some basis unrelated to the object's status as a Government contractor or supplier, that is, that it be imposed equally on other similarly situated constituents of the State. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John Paul Stevens, North Dakota v. United States…

“ The two North Dakota regulations fall within the core of the State's power under the Twenty-first Amendment. In the interest of promoting temperance, ensuring orderly market conditions, and raising revenue, the State has established a comprehensive system for the distribution of liquor within its borders. That system is unquestionably legitimate. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John Paul Stevens, North Dakota v. United States…

“ Since long before the enactment of the most recent procurement statute, the State of North Dakota has regulated the importation and distribution of alcoholic beverages within its borders. See N.D.Cent.Code ch. 5 (1987 and Supp.1989) . Under the State's regulatory system, there are three levels of liquor distributors: out-of-state distillers/suppliers, state-licensed wholesalers, and state-licensed retailers. Distillers/suppliers may sell to only licensed wholesalers or federal enclaves. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John Paul Stevens, North Dakota v. United States…

“ It is one thing, however, to say that the State may not pass regulations which directly obstruct federal law; it is quite another to say that they cannot pass regulations which incidentally raise the costs to the military. Any number of state laws may make it more costly for the military to purchase liquor. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John Paul Stevens, North Dakota v. United States…

“ A regulatory regime which so favors the Federal Government cannot be considered to discriminate against it.
The conclusion that the labeling regulation does not violate the intergovernmental immunity doctrine does not end the inquiry into whether the regulation impermissibly interferes with federal activities. Congress has the power to confer immunity from state regulation on Government suppliers beyond that conferred by the Constitution alone, see, e.g., United States v. ”

John Paul Stevens

Summary

Quotes from North Dakota v. United States… (John Paul Stevens)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature