[PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-10525 ____________________

JERRY BAINBRIDGE, FAYE BAINBRIDGE, GENE BRETOI, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, versus GOVERNOR OF FLORIDA, et al.,

Defendants,

DIRECTOR OF THE FLORIDA DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND TOBACCO,

Defendant-Appellant. USCA11 Case: 22-10525 Document: 44-1 Date Filed: 08/04/2023 Page: 2 of 17

2 Opinion of the Court 22-10525

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 8:99-cv-02681-JDW-AEP ____________________

Before JILL PRYOR, NEWSOM, and GRANT, Circuit Judges. JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judge: This appeal stems from the State of Florida’s request to clar- ify a 17-year-old injunction. Over 20 years ago, a group of Florida wine consumers and an out-of-state winery (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) sued the Director of the Florida Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, alleging that certain provisions of Florida’s beverage laws unconstitutionally discriminated against out-of-state wineries. After the United States Supreme Court ruled a virtually identical statutory scheme unconstitutional, the Division agreed to entry of judgment declaring Florida’s direct shipment laws uncon- stitutional as applied to out-of-state “wineries.” The Division also agreed to an injunction prohibiting it from enforcing its direct ship- ment laws “against out-of-state vendors and producers.” Signifi- cantly, these last five words were absent from the parties’ proposed injunction and were added sua sponte by the district court. No one objected to the court’s addition of this language. That is, not until 16 years later, when the Division filed a motion in district court to “clarify and modify” the injunction. Spe- cifically, the Division asked the district court to confirm that the USCA11 Case: 22-10525 Document: 44-1 Date Filed: 08/04/2023 Page: 3 of 17

22-10525 Opinion of the Court 3

injunction applied only to out-of-state wineries rather than out-of- state wine retailers generally. The district court denied the Divi- sion’s motion. We affirm. I. BACKGROUND Florida, like many states, strictly regulates the production, distribution, and sale of alcoholic beverages. The State’s beverage laws afforded Florida wineries a unique advantage over their out- of-state counterparts. Florida’s statutory scheme allowed in-state wineries to sell and deliver wine directly to consumers—without going through a distributor or retailer—but prohibited out-of-state wineries from doing the same. Compare Fla. Stat. §§ 561.54 and 561.545 (generally prohibiting the direct delivery of alcoholic bev- erages to Florida consumers from out of state), and id. § 561.22(1) (generally prohibiting manufacturers from obtaining vendor li- censes), with § 561.221(1)(a) (providing an exception for Florida wine manufacturers—e.g., wineries—which may obtain vendor li- censes to sell directly to consume