Tennessee law imposes durational-residency requirements on persons and companies wishing to operate retail liquor stores, requiring applicants for an initial license to have resided in the state for the prior two years, requiring an applicant for renewal of a license to reside in the state for 10 consecutive years, and providing that a corporation cannot obtain a license unless all of its stockholders are residents.

Following the state attorney general’s opinion that the residency requirements discriminated against out-of-state economic interests in violation of the Commerce Clause, the Tennessee Alcoholic Beverage Commission (TABC) declined to enforce the requirements. Two businesses that did not meet the residency requirements, Total Wine and the Ketchum family, applied for licenses to own and operate liquor stores in Tennessee. Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Association (Association)—a trade association of in-state liquor stores—

threatened to sue the TABC if it granted the licenses, so the TABC’s executive director filed a declaratory judgment action in state court to settle the question of the residency requirements’ constitutionality. The two businesses applying for licenses argue that the restriction violated the dormant Commerce Clause. What do you think of that argument?