Bacchus Imports, Ltd. v. Dias

468 U.S. 263 (1984)

Quick Summary

Bacchus Imports, Ltd. and Eagle Distributors, Inc. (plaintiffs), challenged a Hawaiian law exempting local beverages from a liquor tax as unconstitutional. The dispute centered on whether this exemption violated the Commerce Clause by unfairly benefiting local products at the expense of out-of-state competitors.

The Supreme Court ruled that such exemptions were discriminatory and reversed the Hawaii Supreme Court’s decision upholding them. The case underscored the principle that states cannot use tax laws to economically protect local industries over interstate commerce.

Facts of the Case

Bacchus Imports, Ltd. and Eagle Distributors, Inc. (plaintiffs), two liquor wholesalers, contested a Hawaii liquor tax that favored certain local alcoholic beverages by exempting them from the tax. Hawaii’s legislation had created a tax break for pineapple wine and okolehao, a brandy made from the ti plant, aiming to support the growth of these local industries.

This exemption was not extended to other alcoholic beverages, including those sold by the plaintiffs, which were subject to a 20% excise tax. The plaintiffs argued that this exemption was unconstitutional, asserting it violated the Commerce Clause among other provisions, and sought a refund for taxes paid under protest.

The case arose from the conflict between the state’s intention to bolster local businesses and the constitutional principles that govern interstate commerce and taxation. The plaintiffs maintained that the tax exemption discriminated against their products, which competed with the exempted local beverages, potentially affecting their sales and market position.

Procedural Posture and History

  1. The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in Hawaii challenging the constitutionality of the liquor tax exemptions.
  2. The Hawaii Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the exemptions.
  3. Plaintiffs appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

I.R.A.C. Format


Whether the Hawaii liquor tax exemptions for locally produced pineapple wine and okolehao violate the Commerce Clause by discriminating against interstate commerce.

Rule of Law

The Commerce Clause prohibits a state from imposing a tax that discriminates against interstate commerce to provide a direct commercial advantage to local businesses.

Reasoning and Analysis

The Supreme Court analyzed whether the tax exemptions for okolehao and pineapple wine unfairly favored these local products over similar products involved in interstate commerce. The Court determined that competition did exist between the locally produced exempt products and nonexempt products from outside the state, irrespective of the actual market share or threat posed by the exempted beverages.

The intent behind the exemptions was to encourage local industries, which inherently disadvantaged out-of-state competitors and thus was considered discriminatory. Furthermore, the Court rejected Hawaii’s defense that the Twenty-first Amendment, which gives states control over alcohol regulation within their borders, justified the exemption.

The Court clarified that while states have broad powers under this amendment, it does not permit them to enact laws that are essentially economic protectionism. Since the exemption was designed to promote local industry rather than address issues related to alcohol consumption or transportation, it was found to be unconstitutional.


The United States Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Hawaii Supreme Court, ruling that the tax exemptions were unconstitutional. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Dissenting Opinions

Justice Stevens, joined by Justices Rehnquist and O’Connor, dissented, expressing skepticism regarding any competitive harm caused by the exemptions to the wholesalers. They also highlighted that the Twenty-first Amendment gives states authority over commerce in intoxicating liquors within their borders, which would include the power to implement such tax exemptions.

Key Takeaways

  1. The Commerce Clause prohibits states from enacting tax laws that discriminate against interstate commerce in favor of local businesses.
  2. The Twenty-first Amendment grants states control over alcohol regulation but does not permit economic protectionism.
  3. Even if competition from exempted products is minimal, any discriminatory effect on interstate commerce is unconstitutional.

Relevant FAQs of this case

What parameters determine a tax law's compliance with the Commerce Clause?

A tax law complies with the Commerce Clause if it treats in-state and out-of-state businesses equitably, does not impose a burden on interstate commerce, and serves a legitimate local interest that outweighs any discriminatory effects on out-of-state entities.

  • For example: A state imposes a uniform sales tax applicable to all retail items, regardless of whether they are produced in-state or imported, thereby not giving local products an unfair advantage.

Can states use their regulatory authority under the Twenty-first Amendment to override the Commerce Clause?

While the Twenty-first Amendment grants states considerable power to regulate alcohol, it does not allow them to enact policies that discriminate against interstate commerce, which would be in violation of the Commerce Clause.

  • For example: A state requires all alcohol sellers to obtain a locally-issued license but cannot refuse to issue licenses to out-of-state entities solely based on their non-residency.

In what instances might a state tax be considered discriminatory against interstate commerce?

A state tax is deemed discriminatory if it provides an advantage to local businesses over those from other states by imposing additional costs on out-of-state products or services or exempting local products from similar taxation.

  • For example: If State A exempts locally produced electronics from sales tax while taxing those produced out-of-state, this would provide a competitive edge to in-state manufacturers and potentially violate the Commerce Clause.


Last updated

Was this case brief helpful?

More Case Briefs in Constitutional Law