preview

Got Juice Case

Decent Essays
Got Juice?
Imagine taking a leap into a new industry. Putting all your eggs into one basket and end up hatching an accomplished company. Being at the forefront of a rapidly expanding market until one day, one state says you are no longer allowed to sell your product there. They have decided they no longer will allow you to continue to sell your products there, thus suffering serious losses. This company has become your life and it is being threatened by just one law from one state. Should states be allowed to create laws that could have national repercussions?
States have the right to create their own laws that serve to protect their own citizens. It is stated in the 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution, under the Bill of Rights,
…show more content…
Legal action was taken by Kentucky based Legato Vapors LLC, and a few other established e-liquid companies challenging the law as being unfairly restrictive and therefore, unconstitutional. They challenged the Indiana Act in two lawsuits, one on the state level and the other on the federal level, on the grounds that it violated the dormant Commerce Clause, Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Indiana Constitution’s Privileges and Immunities Clause. In both lawsuits the courts rejected each of the plaintiffs’ arguments and granted summary judgments in favor of the State. The presiding federal Judge Sarah Evans Barker of the Southern District of Indiana,…show more content…
A Florida based company, GoodCat LLC did not seek to declare the law as unconstitutional, instead they focused on the "security requirements" of the law. U.S. District Judge Richard L. Young found that the "security requirements" of the Indiana law resulted in a violation of the U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause. The Commerce Clause declares that the states cannot pass laws that discriminate or hinder interstate business. The law created by the state of Indiana inadvertently created a monopoly. The state went from having 164 out of state businesses selling products in Indiana to only 2, and 13 in state businesses to 4. In Young's decision he wrote "The Acts security requirements are such that only one local firm can provide a state-mandated service for commercial access to Indiana's market for e-liquids. ...As one might predict, the lone firm's capacity in fact favors local commerce at the expense of interstate commerce.” (3) Indiana’s vaping law in and of itself was not unconstitutional. However, an unintended consequence of the law’s security requirements was that it created a discriminatory setting for interstate commerce resulting in out-of- state companies suffering substantial financial
Get Access