Derek Block v. James Canepa

── Derek Block v. James Canepa ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Date: May 06, 2026 Category: General RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 26a0132p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ┐ DEREK BLOCK, │ Plaintiff, │ │ KENNETH M. MILLER; HOUSE OF GLUNZ, INC., │ Plaintiffs-Appellants, > No. 25-3305 │ │ v. │ │ │ JAMES V. CANEPA, Superintendent of Liquor Control, │ Ohio Division of Liquor Control, │ Defendant, │ │ DAVE YOST, Attorney General of Ohio, │ │ Defendant-Appellee, │ │ WHOLESALE BEER & WINE ASSOCIATION OF OHIO, │ Intervenor Defendant-Appellee. │ ┘ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Columbus. No. 2:20-cv-03686—Sarah Daggett Morrison, Chief Judge. Argued: February 24, 2026 Decided and Filed: May 6, 2026 Before: MOORE, CLAY, and MATHIS, Circuit Judges. _________________ COUNSEL ARGUED: James A. Tanford, EPSTEIN SEIF PORTER & BEUTEL, LLP, Indianapolis, Indiana, for Appellants. Michael J. Hendershot, OFFICE OF THE OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellee Dave Yost. ON BRIEF: James A. Tanford, EPSTEIN SEIF PORTER & BEUTEL, LLP, Indianapolis, Indiana, for Appellants. Michael J. Hendershot, Mathura J. Sridharan, Kaitlyn M. Kachmarik, Samantha V. Rupp, OFFICE OF THE  No. 25-3305 Block, et al. v. Canepa, et al. Page 2 OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellee. Martha Brewer Motley, Emily J. Taft, Maxwell H. King, VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR AND PEASE LLP, Columbus, Ohio, for Intervenor Appellee. Sean O’Leary, O’LEARY LAW AND POLICY GROUP, LLC, Chicago, Illinois, John C. Neiman, Jr., MAYNARD NEXSEN PC, Birmingham, Alabama, Frederick R. Yarger, William P. Sowers, Jr., WHEELER TRIGG O’DONNELL LLP, Denver, Colorado, for Amici Curiae. _________________ OPINION _________________ CLAY, Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs Kenneth M. Miller and House of Glunz, Inc. challenge the constitutionality of Ohio liquor laws preventing out-of-state wine retailers from shipping wine directly to Ohio consumers, Ohio Rev. Code §§ 4301.01(A)(2), 4301.58(C), 4303.12, 4303.25, 4303.236(B)(1), 4303.27 (the “Direct Ship Restriction”), and prohibiting individuals from transporting more than six bottles of wine into Ohio during any 30-day period, id. § 4301.20(L) (the “Transportation Restriction”). On appeal, Plaintiffs challenge the district court’s holding that the Restrictions are constitutional. For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE the district court and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with