Sixpacks in the court
Before you go off complaining about the damn Pennsylvania Supreme Court and its ruling last week against sixpack sales in convenience stores, realize that what was required to enable those sales in this case was an activist court.
Quick recap: Sheetz, kind of the Wawa of western Pa., sought a retail license - the type that’s available to delicatessens (the Foodery) or even supermarkets (Wegman’s), as long as they maintain a separate seating area inside the store where customers can consume the beer. Sheetz had made no such provision, and wanted to sell beer for takeout only.
I know, stupid rule - the whole idea of sixpacks is they’re handy for taking home. The PLCB must’ve been on the same page, because it granted the license.
The state’s beer distributor association appealed the decision and won in Commonwealth Court. Sheetz was joined by the PLCB in the appeal to the state Supreme Court.
The high court rightly rejected the licensing because the PLCB clearly ignored the explicit intent of the law.* Namely, that there are two basic licenses:
- R-retail. Permits consumption of beer on premises and sixpack sales to go.
- D-distributor. No requirement to maintain seating on premises, but must sell beer by the case.
Sheetz, the court noted, wanted it both ways: sales of sixpacks without the obligation to maintain a separate seating area. Allowing an R licensee that right would be patently unfair to those who paid substantial fees for their D license, the court said.
Yes, the wording of the rule is a bit dodgy (see below), and the dissent rightly pointed out that the R licensees have to purchase their beer from D licensees, so what’s the big deal? But the majority opinion noted (and this is hugely important to any discussion about state liquor laws) that “the purpose of the Code is to restrain the sale of alcohol and to protect the public welfare, health, peace, and morals of the citizens of Pennsylvania.” So, on any close calls, beer lovers are going to be on the losing side.
Outdated concept of beer? Hell, yeah. But the court stated that “…it is not our role to sanction such a momentous transformation.” In other words, if you supported sixpacks in this case, you need an activist bench.
And here’s the sole dissenting opinion (Eakin).
*Here’s the exact language, my emphasis:
“Retail dispenser” shall mean any person licensed to engage in the retail sale of malt or brewed beverages for consumption on the premises of such licensee, with the privilege of selling malt or brewed beverages in quantities not in excess of one hundred ninety-two fluid ounces in a single sale to one person, to be carried from the premises by the purchaser thereof.
Leave a Reply