The shipment or transportation, in any manner or by any means whatsoever, of any spirituous, vinous, malted, fermented, or other intoxicating liquor of any kind, from one State, Territory, or District of the United States, or place noncontiguous to but subject to the jurisdiction thereof, into any other State, Territory, or District of the United States, or place noncontiguous to but subject to the jurisdiction thereof, or from any foreign country into any State, Territory, or District of the United States, or place noncontiguous to but subject to the jurisdiction thereof, which said spirituous, vinous, malted, fermented, or other intoxicating liquor is intended, by any person interested therein, to be received, possessed, sold, or in any manner used, either in the original package or otherwise, in violation of any law of such State, Territory, or District of the United States, or place noncontiguous to but subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is prohibited.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
66
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1931–2024 · leading case:
Granholm v. Heald, 544 U.S. 460 (2005).
Granholm v. Heald, 544 U.S. 460 (2005).
· cites it 6× “699 , 27 U.S.C. § 122 . See Rogers, supra, at 363-370.”
Tennessee Wine & Spirits Retailers Assn. v. Thomas, 139 S. Ct. 2449 (2019).
· cites it 3× “There were those who thought that a federal law giving the States this authority would amount to an unconstitutional delegation of Congress's legislative power over interstate commerce.”
Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976).
· cites it 2× “" 27 U. S. C. § 122 . [20] "The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.”
Arnold's Wines, Inc. v. Boyle, 571 F.3d 185 (2d Cir. 2009).
· cites it 2× “699 , 699-700 (codified at 27 U.S.C. § 122 ). It is not precisely clear what kind of regulation the Webb-Kenyon Act meant to allow.”
Fam. Winemakers of California v. Jenkins, 592 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2010).
“” 27 U.S.C. § 122 . 26 . The states of New Jersey, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Wyoming, as amici, do not join Massachusetts's argument that there is no Commerce Clause scrutiny if the statute is facially neutral.”
Mt. Hood Beverage Co. v. Constellation Brands, Inc., 149 Wash. 2d 98 (Wash. 2003).
· cites it 2× “The Webb-Kenyon Act Finally, the Distributors argue that Congress’s reenactment of the Webb-Kenyon Act ( 27 U.S.C. § 122 ) in 1935 is a conveyance to the states by Congress of the ability to regulate the importation of liquor, thus immunizing state liquor regulation from dormant…”
United States v. Sharpnack, 355 U.S. 286 (1958).
· cites it 2× “699 , 700, 27 U. S. C. § 122 , prohibited the shipment of intoxicating liquors into a State to be used "in violation of any law of such State .”
Morgan v. Virginia, 328 U.S. 373 (1946).
· cites it 2× “4, concerning "Bankruptcies"), the power to regulate commerce does not require geographic uniformity.”
Carter v. Virginia, 321 U.S. 131 (1944).
· cites it 2× “[8] Twenty-first Amendment, § 2; 27 U.S.C. § 122 .”
Johnson v. Yellow Cab Transit Co., 137 F.2d 274 (10th Cir. 1943).
· cites it 4× “877 , 27 U.S.C.A. § 122 , each prohibit the transportation or importation of intoxicating liquor into a state in violation of the laws of such state.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.