CONNECTICUT FINE WINE AND SPIRITS, LLC, d/b/a, Total Wine & More v. Commissioner Michelle H. SEAGULL, Department of Consumer Protection, John Suchy, Director, Division of Liquor Control, Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of Connecticut, Inc., Connecticut Beer Wholesalers Association, Inc., Connecticut Restaurant Association, Connecticut Package Stores Association, Inc., Brescome Barton, Inc., Intervenors-Defendants-Appellees. [2019]

Version 1 of 4

Reference to CONNECTICUT FINE WINE AND SPIRITS, LLC, d/b/a, Total Wine & More v. Commissioner Michelle H. SEAGULL, Department of Consumer Protection, John Suchy, Director, Division of Liquor Control, Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of Connecticut, Inc., Connecticut Beer Wholesalers Association, Inc., Connecticut Restaurant Association, Connecticut Package Stores Association, Inc., Brescome Barton, Inc., Intervenors-Defendants-Appellees. (932 F.3d 22) strengthens a Wine Law answer because the case reflects the principle that The ratio is presumably the same as in the related case: nondiscriminatory alcohol regulations supported by Twenty-first Amendment interests are valid. Applied to a problem question, the case should be used after identifying the issue as The study issue is the same: the constitutionality of Connecticut's liquor regulations under the dormant Commerce Clause and First Amendment. The stronger essay move is to connect the material facts to the court's holding, then explain whether the present facts support the same conclusion or justify distinguishing the authority.