Cooper v. Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 7269
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Texas law imposed a durational-residency requirement for mixed-beverage permits (historically multi-year) that prevented out-of-state persons from obtaining or holding controlling interests in permittees.
- Over 25 years ago plaintiffs Wilson and Cooper (out-of-state) challenged the residency rule under §1983; the district court enjoined enforcement and this court affirmed on Commerce Clause grounds in Cooper v. McBeath.
- The Texas Package Stores Association (TPSA) — an intervenor in the original case — moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5) in 2014 to dissolve the injunction based on changed decisional law (notably Granholm v. Heald).
- The district court denied TPSA’s Rule 60(b) motion for lack of jurisdiction (mootness and standing) after the original plaintiffs did not appear; two out-of-state corporations intervened as plaintiffs to oppose TPSA.
- The Fifth Circuit reversed the jurisdictional dismissal, held TPSA has associational standing (its members suffered economic injury from the injunction and redress is possible), and then denied Rule 60(b)(5) relief on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness — is there a live case or controversy after original plaintiffs stopped participating? | TPSA argued proceedings were moot without original plaintiffs. | Intervenors and court argued the injunction has prospective effect and intervention preserves dispute. | Not moot: injunction’s prospective relief and intervenors keep a live controversy. |
| Standing — may TPSA (an intervenor association) invoke Article III to seek Rule 60(b) relief? | TPSA: its members suffer economic injury from increased competition due to injunction; association meets associational-standing tests. | Intervenors argued TPSA lacks redressability because injunction binds only the state agency and the state did not appeal. | TPSA has associational standing: members show injury-in-fact and redressability (private enforcement avenues exist). |
| Redressability — would vacating the injunction actually remedy TPSA’s injury? | TPSA: dissolving the injunction would allow enforcement of residency rule and reduce out-of-state competition. | Opponents: even if injunction lifted, other competitors would fill any gap; state’s non-appeal prevents redress. | Redressable: reinstating residency restriction would reduce competition; private statutory remedies and ability to sue/state enforcement make relief practical. |
| Rule 60(b)(5) merits — does Granholm or subsequent law represent a significant change warranting dissolution of the injunction? | TPSA: Granholm and later cases altered analysis of state alcohol regulation vs. Commerce Clause, favoring state control. | Intervenors/TPSA opponents: Heald/Granholm did not change Commerce Clause/Twenty-first Amendment framework in a way that undermines prior holdings; Privileges and Immunities claim remains. | Denied on merits: Heald did not materially alter the legal framework to justify Rule 60(b)(5); TPSA also failed to rebut Privileges and Immunities ground. |
Key Cases Cited
- Granholm v. Heald, 544 U.S. 460 (2005) (addressed direct-shipment laws and interaction of Twenty-first Amendment with Commerce Clause)
- Brown-Forman Distillers Corp. v. N.Y. State Liquor Auth., 476 U.S. 573 (1986) (Commerce Clause analysis for state alcohol regulations)
- Bacchus Imports, Ltd. v. Dias, 468 U.S. 263 (1984) (state economic protectionism and Twenty-first Amendment limits)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing: injury, causation, redressability)
- Diamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54 (1986) (limits on private parties defending state laws; standing of intervenor-defendants)
- Kendall-Jackson Winery, Ltd. v. Branson, 212 F.3d 995 (7th Cir. 2000) (redressability and limits on third-party appeals when injunction binds only the state)
- Wine Country Gift Baskets.com v. Steen, 612 F.3d 809 (5th Cir. 2010) (reading of Heald and application to three-tier system tiers)
- Cooper v. McBeath, 11 F.3d 547 (5th Cir. 1994) (prior panel decision affirming injunction based on Commerce Clause)