*1 LIQUOR POLICE, BUREAU OF PENNSYLVANIA STATE ENFORCEMENT, Appellant, CONTROL PHILADELPHIA, OF INVESTMENTS HOSPITALITY INC., Appellee. Pennsylvania. Supreme Court July Submitted 6, 1997. Decided Feb. *2 Wolowski, Philadelphia, Ira Stanley Pittsburgh, Shrager, J. for PA St. Police. Goldstein, DiVito, Hosp. for Barry Philadelphia, F.
Gary Invest. C.J., CAPPY, FLAHERTY, ZAPPALA,
Before NEWMAN, CASTILLE, JJ. NIGRO OF THE COURT OPINION CAPPY, Justice. in this is before us raised direct question Court, is from whether remand set forth in section 498 of liquor price advertising ban on Code),1 47 P.S. 4- Pennsylvania (Liquor Code Liquor follow,
498, For reasons which is unconstitutional. affirm the order that this ban is unconstitutional and conсlude of the trial court. appeal our this same issued previously 3, 1994, history and factual procedural
November
which the
briefly
appellant,
is explained.2
recapitulate,
of this matter
To
(Bureau),
re-
Liquor
Bureau of
Control Enforcement
sponsible
Hospitality
Code.
enforcing
Liquor
Appellee,
Investments of
is the holder of
Philadelphia,
(Hospitality),
Inc.
liquor
Pennsylvania Liquor
restaurant
license issued
29, 1987,
seq.
P.L.
As reenаcted June
47 P.S.
1-101 et
Liquor
Police
Control
State
Bureau
Enforcement
Inc.,
Hospitality
Philadelphia,
We reversed on taken the appeal matter came us a direct before 3, court opinion, In 1994 this Bureau.3 our November exercise of the Common- ban was valid the to Twenty-first Amendment the right, under the wealth’s Constitution,4 consump- regulate the salе and Court, but the matter appealed to the Commonwealth court, 1992, Appeal 77 this No. E.D. Docket was at transferred jurisdiction appeals from final orders of pursuant exclusive to our has held a statute рleas cases where such a court courts of common in 722(7). 42 be See Pa.C.S. unconstitutional. Consti Twenty-first 1 of to the United States 4. Section the Amendment sale, "manufacture, transpor repealed prohibition оn the tution intoxicating its liquors" in the United States and territories tation of place Eighteenth Amendment which had been in Liquormart, 44 States Constitution from 1919 until 1933. See United 1495, 1513-14, Island, U.S. -, -, S.Ct. 134 Rhode 517 116 Inc. v. (1996). L.Ed.2d 735 transporta- Twenty-first provides: "The 2 of Amendment Statе, Territory, possession of United importation into tion or
145 LaRue, alia, 409 inter (citing, of alcohol tion California (1972)). 390, 34 93 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d U.S. 13, 1996, Court issued Supreme the United States May
On Island, Rhode Inc. v. 517 U.S. Liquormart, in opinion its later, (1996). -, 1495, 134 One week 116 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d Supremе granted Court May the United States matter, and, simultaneously, vacated in the present certiorari consider remanding the case to us further judgment, our in decision Supreme States Court’s light ation — —, 1821, 134 Liquormart. S.Ct. us. Thus, before again the matter L.Ed.2d 927 Liquormart, petitioners before In retailers alcoholic were licensed Supreme Court statutory ban violated Rhode Island’s beverages who had Supreme price advertising.5 United liquor Liquormart analyze in order to certiorari granted the retailers’ Twenty-first Amendment relevance rights. First Amendment the United States Stevens, supra, which was delivered Justice qualify does not Twenty-first
held that the freedom laws prohibition agаinst abridging constitutional In reaching in the First embodied Amendment. Liquor- conclusion, Uk intoxicating liquors, delivery in violation or use therein states for Const., thereof, hereby prohibited." U.S. Amdt. the laws prohibited Liquormart in 44 a licensee 5. The first statute price of manner whatsoever cordials, state. offered for sale *4 wine (1987). The second statute Rhode Island Gen. Laws 3-8-7 media challenged Liquormart applied to Rhode Island news in the against publiсation or categorical prohibition a the and contained advertisements, any referring to sales in other even those broadcast of states, price any beverage. of alcoholic whiсh made reference to the See Rhode Island Gen. Laws 3-8-8.1 Liquormart challenged Regulation Additionally, petitioners the in 44 Regulations Control Rules of Rhode Island’s 32 of the and Administrator, provided placard sign that is visible thаt no which may any make reference to the package exterior store from the beverage. price of alcoholic LaRue, supra, mart rejected court’s and the lower reliancе LaRue in the disavowed the used specifically reasoning it Twenty-first relied on the Amendment.6 extent Liquormart in that the Supreme United States mat- challenged regulation Rhode Island statutes and in that abridged in violation of the First Amendment as ter Due applicable by made to the States the Process Clause the Fourteenth Amendment.7 imposed by ban our Common- language Island, by and that Rhode which was held imposed
wealth Supreme the in by unсonstitutional be Liquormart, identical. The Rhode Island statute nearly Liquormart provided in pertinent part: cordials, of malt or dis-
Advertising price beverages, wholesaler, manufacturer, shipper liquor. tilled —No state, no without this and holder of license issued permit this title shall provisions chapter the and cause whatsoever of the the manner cordials, wine or distilled state; however, sale in that the provided, provisions LаRue, Supreme In five States Court relied members United Twenty-first that the First the Amendment buttress the conclusion grossly prohibition certain Amendment did not invalidate California’s beverages. premises sexual licensed to serve alcoholic exhibitions Twenty-first The United Court in LaRue stated that the prohibition given be an added required Amendment that California’s validity. presumption in United favor of its Liquormart the result would been reached in 44 stated that samе have Twenty-first even been no on the Amend in LaRue had there reliance at -, by Liquormart, S.Ct. at ment the Court. See 44 1513-14, 134 L.Ed.2d at opinion respect the the court 7. Justice Stevens delivered with II, VII, opinion. opinion VIII of the These sections of the Parts and procedural background set forth factual and Twenty-first holding regard- Amendment and Court’s discussion of Amendment, Twenty-first regarding ing holding Court’s and the remaining First Amendment. The sections of reasoning leading holding regarding First forth, Court, fact, majority gamer set did not the votes of a and in Scalia, opinions: by generated separate opinion several an Justice concurring judgment; part concurring opinion in the an Thоmas, concurring part concurring judgment; in the Justice O’Connor, joined by an Justice who was the Chief Justice, Souter, Breyer, concurring judgment. Justice and Justice in the
147 tags or attached price signs not apply of this sectiоn shall for the licensed on merchandise sale within placed regulations in accordance with rules and premises department. 1500- at -, 116 S.Ct. at n.
See 44 Gen. Rhode Island (quoting n. L.Ed.2d at n. (1987)). Laws 3-8-7 Code, Liquor Pennsylvania section 498 of our
Similarly, provides:
(a) permit under act shall cause or No ... licensee this manner whatsoever cordial, Provided, however, That Commonwealth: sale apply price signs shall not this section provisions for sale within tags рlaced attached to or merchandise regula- with rules and premises the licensed accordance tions the board. 4-498.
47 P.S. final arbiter of As the United States Constitution,8 we brought challenges under the United States Supreme Court’s hold- to follow the United States are bound result, Liquormart here. As a we conclude ing abridges speech Code Pennsylvania’s section 498 of Consti- violation of the First tution, Due Process to the States aрplicable as made Amendment. the Fourteenth Clause 498 is also as recognize that the section
We Pennsyl abridgement of an unconstitutional I, Constitution, Article Pennsylvania Constitution. See vania Pennsylvania interprеting provision 7.9 In See, Sanitary e.g., v. American Radiator & Standard (W.D.Pa.1967). Corp., F.Supp. provides, Article Section 7 of Constitution pertinent part: opinions thoughts is one of the free communication man, may freely sрeak, write rights every citizen invaluable responsible print subject, being for the abuse of that liberty. Constitution, that we are not bound recognize interpret decisions of the United States distinct) provisions. Com- similar federal constitutional (yet Edmunds, monwealth v. 526 Pa. *6 explained:
have minimum lev establishes certain federal constitution [ T]he state [analogous] “equally applicable els which are However, pow each state has provision.” constitutional standards, mini beyond the go broader provide er by federal constitution. mum is established floor which fre- increasing have with Pennsylvania, Here in we stated necessary we that quency important that it both аnalysis Pennsylvania Con- independent an undertake stitution, of fundamental docu- each time a that provision Although may weight accord implicated. ment is to be they logically federal “are found decisions whеre reasoned, paying regard prece- and well due persuasive specific guar- constitutional policies underlying dent and the of antees,” reject free the conclusions we are faithful to the long Court so as we remain by States Con- established guarantees minimum stitution. (citations
Id. at 388-390, quotations 894-895 586 A.2d at omitted). I, to Article regard has with recognized
This court Constitution, the United States 7 of the Section free minimum guarantee provides of Constitutional v. Bureau Insurance Adjustment Insurance standard. Comm’r, (1988). We, thus, need 518 Pa. Article independent analysis in an engage not here, in this has matter since the ban meeting as not been held the United States guаrantee the minimum established Constitution. Pleas affirm the order of the Common accordingly Philadelphia County. Appeal E.D. at 77 concurring opinion
CASTILLE, J., files Appeal 80 E.D. at 78 and concurring statements 92 and Dkt. Dkts. 92.
ORDER PER CURIAM. 1997, it is ordered Fеbruary, NOW, day 6th
AND Philadelphia Pleas Common order that the AFFIRMED. hereby County Justice, CASTILLE, concurring. the same since it reaches majority
I
in the
join
in this case
dissenting opinion
in my
I
reached
conclusion
Pennsyl
in 1994.
before the Court
was first
the matter
when
Police,
Liquor Control
State
vania
Enforcement
Inc.,
Pa.
Philadelphia,
Investments
Hospitality
JJ.,
*7
Castille,
(1994)
(Flaherty and
650 A.2d
— U.S. —,
remanded,
116 S.Ct.
dissenting), vacated and
1821,
689 A.2d LIQUOR POLICE, OF BUREAU STATE PENNSYLVANIA ENFORCEMENT, Appellant, CONTROL PHILADELPHIA, OF INVESTMENTS HOSPITALITY INC., Appellee. Pennsylvania. Supreme Court of July Submitted 6, 1997. Decided Feb.