We thus conclude that Ohio does not actually maintain a three-tier system through which 'all [wine] passes before reaching consumers.'
Ohio has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review a federal appeals court ruling that struck down the state's ban on wine shipments by out-of-state retailers, setting up what could become the most consequential direct-to-consumer wine case in two decades. The state filed its petition for certiorari on June 5, 2026, and additional briefing in response to Ohio's request was filed in September.
The Sixth Circuit ruling
In Block v. Canepa, decided May 6, 2026, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit unanimously held that Ohio's ban on direct shipping by out-of-state retailers, and its limits on personal importation of wine by consumers, violate the dormant Commerce Clause because they discriminate against interstate commerce. The panel concluded the restrictions are not essential features of the three-tier system of alcohol regulation, writing: "We thus conclude that Ohio does not actually maintain a three-tier system through which 'all [wine] passes before reaching consumers.'"
Legal commentators noted the ruling was an outlier: most circuits that have considered retailer shipping restrictions have upheld them, and the Sixth Circuit's reasoning could, if it stands, expand retailer DTC access across the circuit's states, Ohio, Michigan and Kentucky.
Ohio's petition
Then-Attorney General Dave Yost filed the certiorari petition on June 5, his last day in office. It was the first petition in the retailer-shipping line of cases filed by a state attorney general, and the first to acknowledge to the Court that a circuit split exists on the question, a key factor in the justices' decision whether to hear a case. The filing came in the wake of widespread public support for expanding consumer shipping access, which proponents say the petition runs against.
What a grant or denial would mean
If the Supreme Court grants certiorari, the case would give the justices their first look at retailer wine shipping since Granholm v. Heald (2005), which addressed winery shipping, not retailer shipping. A decision on the merits could either nationalize retailer DTC access or validate state bans, depending on the direction of the ruling. If the Court denies review, the Sixth Circuit's decision stands as precedent in Ohio, Michigan and Kentucky, but remains persuasive only elsewhere, leaving the existing patchwork of state retailer shipping laws intact.
For industry executives, the practical stakes are large. Retailer shipping, distinct from winery DTC, would open a second DTC channel for producers' wines sold through retail partners, but also a new competitive channel for out-of-state retailers into local markets. Watch the Court's orders list this fall for a grant or denial; either outcome will move state legislatures to act.