“Wine Case Is Corker” was the headline on the front page of the first issue of The New York Sun. It was a reference to Swedenburg v. Kelly, involving the right of New Yorkers to purchase wine from out of state vineyards over the Internet (or for that matter, the phone or mail).

The Supreme Court this week decided to review the case. The way the question was framed by the Supreme Court and the Institute for Justice, the not-for-profit law firm that is representing the plaintiffs, is this: “Does a state’s regulatory scheme that permits in-state wineries directly to ship alcohol to consumers but restricts the ability of out-of-state wineries to do so violate the dormant Commerce Clause in light of Section Two of the 21st Amendment.”

The 21st Amendment is the one that ended prohibition and its second clause says that the states have the authority to regulate the importation or distribution of alcohol. The Commerce Clause says that it is the Congress — rather than the states — that has the power to regulate the way business is conducted across state lines. It was designed to prevent the establishment of protectionist regimes among the individual states, and many believe is one of the most farsighted clauses for those seeking a unified country called America. On the basis of the plain language school of law, this is a classic situation for the Supreme Court.

New Yorkers wanting to import their own wine won in federal district court in November of 2002, but that ruling was overturned by the judges who ride the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals earlier this year. The riders of the 2nd Circuit said basically that the out-of-state wineries were not discriminated against because they had the same right as in-state wineries to set up retail establishments in the Empire State.

They also put great stock in that second clause of the 21st Amendment. In other words, it was okay to block the out-of-state vendors of alcohol, even if not of the kind of things that, say, L.L. Bean sells. A favorable decision by the high court will vindicate the vision of the founders, who understood that America would be built and held together by lawful commerce among its citizens, even if they’re from New York.

By moving on Governor Pataki’s recent suggestion and striking down the restriction on their own volition, the New York State Legislature could beat the Supremes to the punch (or to the wine). That might leave the federalism issues unresolved, but still give New Yorkers a freedom worth toasting.