Anvar v. Dwyer, 82 F.4th 1

Rhode Island enforces a three-tier alcohol distribution system: separate licensing for manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers; retailers and wholesalers must maintain in-state physical premises.
Only in-state wholesalers may receive out-of-state shipments and sell to Rhode Island retailers; retailers may deliver purchases to consumers but must do so themselves (no deliveries by common carrier).
Exception: consumers can buy from manufacturers (including out-of-state manufacturers) in person on the manufacturer’s premises and have shipments sent by common carrier.
Plaintiffs Kambis Anvar and Michelle Drum sued state officials, alleging the in-state retailer presence requirement and the common-carrier ban discriminate against out-of-state retailers in violation of the dormant Commerce Clause.
The district court upheld the in-state-presence requirement and the common-carrier ban as consistent with the Twenty-first Amendment but relied on generalized justifications rather than concrete evidence of public-health benefits.
The First Circuit affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further factual development regarding the in-state-presence requirement and the common-carrier restriction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether RI's requirement that retail licensees maintain an in-state physical presence discriminates against out-of-state retailers and is permissible under the Twenty-first Amendment	Anvar: rule discriminates against out-of-state retailers and cannot be justified as protecting public health absent concrete evidence	Dwyer/Neronha: requirement is integral to RI's three-tier system and promotes health and safety under the Twenty-first Amendment	Court vacated district judgment on this issue and remanded for factual development; state must produce concrete evidence showing the requirement's predominant effect advances §2 interests rather than protectionism
Whether prohibition on delivery by common carrier discriminates in effect or purpose	Anvar: common-carrier ban disproportionately burdens out-of-state retailers, especially if in-state presence rule invalidated	Dwyer/Neronha: ban is facially neutral; applies to all retailers regardless of location	Court vacated district’s nondiscrimination finding and remanded for reassessment of discriminatory effect/purpose if in-state-presence rule is struck down
Requirement that retailers purchase only from in-state wholesalers	Plaintiffs challenged below but abandoned on appeal	State defended as valid under the Twenty-first Amendment	Affirmed — appellate court declined to consider because plaintiffs waived the argument on appeal

Tennessee Wine & Spirits Retailers Ass'n v. Thomas, 139 S. Ct. 2449 (2019) (Twenty-first Amendment limits state alcohol regulation but does not immunize discriminatory laws; state must offer concrete evidence of public-health benefits)
Granholm v. Heald, 544 U.S. 460 (2005) (state alcohol laws must conform to nondiscrimination principle of the dormant Commerce Clause)
Dep't of Revenue of Ky. v. Davis, 553 U.S. 328 (2008) (dormant Commerce Clause requires discriminatory laws to advance legitimate local purpose and lack reasonable nondiscriminatory alternatives)
Or. Waste Sys., Inc. v. Dep't of Env't Quality of Or., 511 U.S. 93 (1994) (framework for assessing facial and discriminatory-effect Commerce Clause claims)
Fam. Winemakers of Cal. v. Jenkins, 592 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2010) (application of dormant Commerce Clause to state alcohol regulations)
B-21 Wines, Inc. v. Bauer, 36 F.4th 214 (4th Cir. 2022) (upholding in-state requirement under Twenty-first Amendment; one line in circuit split)
Block v. Canepa, 74 F.4th 400 (6th Cir. 2023) (contrasting approach; remanded for evidentiary showing under Tennessee Wine)