On June 30, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Randall v. Scott held that the First Amendment affords protection to an individual based on the mere basis of that individual’s political candidacy. In so doing, the Randall court departed from other circuit courts, which had approached the issue by way of analogy to the First Amendment freedoms of speech and association. This Comment concludes that the Eleventh Circuit’s novel approach, although well intentioned, is only tenuously grounded in Supreme Court precedent.

Boston College Law Review

Wading Through the "Morass": The Eleventh Circuit Recognizes a Right to Candidacy in Randall v. Scott

In a landmark 2005 decision, Granholm v. Heald, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states could not constitutionally discriminate in interstate commerce by permitting in-state wineries to ship directly to customers while prohibiting the same for out-of-state wineries. States previously had argued, with some success historically, that the Twenty-first Amendment authorized them to regulate liquor as they pleased—-without Commerce Clause interference. Granholm seemed to clearly establish, once and for all, that “the Twenty-first Amendment does not supersede other provisions of the Constitution.” Several recent federal courts of appeals, however, have refused to heed this clear message when confronted with challenges to laws discriminating against out-of-state wine retailers. This Note argues that a simple Commerce Clause analysis should apply to discrimination against all out-of-state business interests, regardless of their status with respect to the traditional three-tier regulatory system.

Search LIRA@BC Law

Search

Resource type (2)

Creator (1)

Keyword (0)

Collection (1)

Availability (1)

Subject (2)

Results

Wading Through the "Morass": The Eleventh Circuit Recognizes a Right to Candidacy in Randall v. Scott

Uncorking Granholm: Extending the Nondiscrimination Principle to all Interstate Commerce in Wine