U.S. Supreme Court STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION v. YOUNG'S MARKET CO., 299 U.S. 59 (1936)

[Page 299 U.S. 59, 60]

Messrs. Walter L. Bowers, of Los Angeles, Cal., and U.S. Webb, of San Francisco, Cal., for appellants.

Messrs. Frederick H. Wood, of New York City, and M. J. Donnelly, of Chicago, Ill., for appellees.

Mr. Justice BRANDEIS delivered the opinion of the Court.

This suit, brought in the federal court for southern California, challenges the validity, under the Twenty-First Amendment of the Federal Constitution, of the provisions of a statute of that state, and of the regulations thereunder, which impose a license-fee of $500 for the privilege of importing beer to any place within its borders. [Footnote 1] The license does not confer the privilege of selling. [Footnote 2] Compare Premier-Pabst Sales Co. v. Grosscup, 298 U.S. 226, 56 S.Ct. 754

[Page 299 U.S. 59, 64]

clear, we do not discuss these matters. The plaintiffs insist that to sustain the exaction of the importer's license fee would involve a declaration that the amendment has, in respect to liquor, freed the states from all restrictions upon the police power to be found in other provisions of the Constitution. The question for decision requires no such generalization.

Second. The claim that the statutory provisions and the regulations are void under the equal protection clause may be briefly disposed of. A classification recognized by the Twenty-First Amendment cannot be deemed forbidden by the Fourteenth. Moreover, the classification in taxation made by California rests on conditions requiring difference in treatment. Beer sold within the state comes from two sources. The brewer of the domestic article may be required to pay a license fee for the privilege of manufacturing it; and under the California statute is obliged to pay $750 a year. Compare Brown-Forman Co. v. Kentucky, , 30 S.Ct. 578. The brewer of the foreign article cannot be so taxed; only the importer can be reached. He is subjected to a license fee of $500. Compare Kidd v. Alabama, 188 U.S. 730, 732, 23 S.Ct. 401.

REVERSED.

Mr. Justice BURTER concurs in the result.

Mr. Justice STONE took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. Footnotes

Footnote 1 The lower courts have differed on this question. See Triner Corporation v. Arundel (D.C.) 11 F.Supp. 145; Premier-Pabst Sales Corporation v. Grosscup (D.C.) 12 F.Supp. 970; General Sales & Liquor Co. v. Becker (D.C.) 14 F.Supp. 348; Pacific Fruit & Produce Co. v. Martin (D. C.W.D.Wash., Southern Div., February 28, 1936) 16 F.Supp. 34. See, also, the following unreported decisions: Premier-Pabst Sales Co. v. McNutt (D. Ind., January 4, 1935); Philip Blum & Co. v. Henry (E.D.Wis., March 28, 1936).

Footnote 2 Constitution of the state of California, Art. 22, 22, as amended November 6, 1934; Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, June 13, 1935, St.Cal. 1935, p. 1123, c. 330, 2(k); 3; 5(8), (13); 6(d), (f); 7; 49 ; 10, 11; 31; Rules of State Board of Equalization, rule 9, (a), (e).

Footnote 3 E.g., In re Rahrer, , 11 S.Ct. 865; Scott v. Donald, 165 U.S. 58, 17 S.Ct. 265; Vance v. W. A. Vandercook Co. (No. 1), 170 U.S. 438, 18 S.Ct. 674; Clark Distilling Co. v. Western Maryland Ry. Co., 242 U.S. 311, 37 S.Ct. 180; L.R.A.1917B, 1218, Ann.Cas.1917B, 845; Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. North Carolina, 245 U.S. 298, 38 S.Ct. 96; McCormick & Co., Inc., v. Brown, 286 U.S. 131, 52 S.Ct. 522, 87 A.L.R. 448.