Indiana Petroleum Marketers & Convenience Store Ass'n v. Cook, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 21572

Background

The Indiana Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Store Association (the Association), three member stores, and a consumer sued to invalidate Indiana Code § 7.1-5-10-11, which prohibits holders of a beer dealer’s permit from selling cooled (cold) packaged beer.
Plaintiffs argued the statute violated the Equal Protection Clause by (1) allowing some grocery/convenience stores in unincorporated towns to sell cold beer while prohibiting like stores in incorporated municipalities, and (2) permitting package liquor stores to sell cold beer while forbidding grocery/convenience stores from doing so.
The district court granted summary judgment for Indiana, rejecting both equal-protection theories and other constitutional claims; the Association appealed only the equal-protection claim.
Indiana defended the law as a permissible alcohol regulation under the Twenty-first Amendment and, alternatively, as rationally related to legitimate state interests (e.g., limiting underage access) under rational-basis review.
The Seventh Circuit held the Twenty-first Amendment does not immunize state alcohol regulations from constitutional review but concluded rational-basis review applies and that Indiana’s distinctions survive that deferential standard.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 7.1-5-10-11 is insulated from constitutional challenge by the Twenty-first Amendment	Twenty-first Amendment gives states near-absolute authority over alcohol regulation, so challenge should fail	Twenty-first Amendment grants broad authority but does not override other constitutional limits	Twenty-first Amendment does not immunize the statute; constitutional review applies
Whether grocery/convenience stores in unincorporated towns may sell cold beer while those in incorporated municipalities may not (equal protection)	Statute treats similarly situated stores differently based on municipal status without rational basis	No actual differential treatment: grocery/convenience stores operate under beer dealer permits everywhere and cannot realistically obtain retailer permits	No violation; plaintiffs misread scheme—there is no meaningful incorporated/unincorporated distinction for beer dealers
Whether package liquor stores may sell cold beer but grocery/convenience stores may not (equal protection)	Distinction lacks rational basis; stores already sell beer and other chilled alcoholic beverages	Package liquor stores are subject to stricter rules (age restrictions, staffing, hours), so limiting cold-beer sales to them furthers public safety and underage-consumption prevention	Held rationally related to legitimate state interests; distinction survives rational-basis review
Appropriate level of scrutiny for the equal-protection challenge	Implicitly urged stricter scrutiny given practical burdens	State argued deferential review applies because no suspect class or fundamental right is implicated	Court applied rational-basis review and upheld the statutory classification

Key Cases Cited

Granholm v. Heald, 544 U.S. 460 (explaining Twenty-first Amendment does not override other constitutional limits)
Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (Twenty-first Amendment does not change equal protection analysis)
FCC v. Beach Communications, Inc., 508 U.S. 307 (standard for rational-basis review; challenger must negative every conceivable basis)
Goodpaster v. City of Indianapolis, 736 F.3d 1060 (Seventh Circuit description of rational-basis inquiry)
Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312 (rational-basis standard: need only a conceivable rational basis)