Yesterday, three federal judges who ride the Second Circuit released a sweeping victory for New York’s wine wholesalers. It’s the wine lovers and the proponents of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause who lost out.

This court battle pits out-of-state vintners, New York oenophiles, and libertarians against local wine wholesalers such as Peerless Importers and Charmer Industries. The former argue that the state’s control, made possible by the 21st Amendment ending Prohibition, amounts to protectionism for New York’s alcohol wholesalers. The latter contend that New York’s Prohibition-era beverage regulation — requiring state-licensed wholesalers to sell all alcohol imported into the state — prevents tax evasion, enforces health and safety regulations, and checks the selling of alcohol to minors.

The decision by Judges Newman, Sotomayor, and Wesley all but reverses a 2002 district court verdict in New York allowing the direct shipment of wine to consumers. The appellate court upheld just one part of the original decision, namely that unlicensed wineries not be completely prohibited from advertising.

The Commerce Clause established the prudent principle that the federal government has final say concerning interstate commerce. The 21st Amendment shifted the power to regulate alcohol from the federal government to the individual states. While this modification to the Constitution allows states the leeway to regulate shipments of alcohol, our nation’s founders pre-empted the power struggle that would have resulted from state-administered commerce.

Some contend this battle might make its way to the United States Supreme Court, as judges who ride on other circuits have ruled elsewhere in favor of free cross-border shipments of wine. Better would be for the governors of the other protectionist states to follow Governor Pataki’s recent example and seek to open their states to direct cross-border wine sales.