The US Supreme Court on Wednesday overturned a Tennessee law that required applicants wishing to sell alcohol to maintain Tennessee residency.

Tennessee currently imposes demanding residential requirements for anyone looking to participate in the distribution of alcohol in the state. Tennessee requires individuals seeking a liquor license to be in-state residence for at least two years, but after one year of operation, they must demonstrate 10 years of continuous residency. Corporations have a similarly strict rule requiring all company officers, directors, and shareholders meet the individual residency requirement. This law was challenged when two companies that did not satisfy the residency requirements requested licenses from the Tennessee Alcoholic Beverage Commission.

Justice Samuel Alito delivered the opinion of the court. Alito reviewed both the history of the Twenty-First Amendment and existing Commerce Clause jurisprudence under which this law was challenged. Alito concluded that the Twenty-First Amendment does not endow states with unlimited sovereignty to restrict the sale of alcohol. Relying on the Dormant Commerce Clause, Alito concluded that Tennessee’s restrictions were unreasonably interfering with interstate commerce and the stated goals of public health and safety are not served by the existing law.

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the dissent, arguing that the Twenty-First Amendment was designed to allow states to regulate commerce in alcohol. Gorsuch claims that similar laws have long been upheld and that alcohol is a special type of commerce which the people intended to regulate themselves through their representatives. Gorsuch would have upheld the law and continued to allow states to decide on proper alcohol policy.