United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 16-3641 E.F. TRANSIT, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DAVID COOK, et al., Defendants-Appellees. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. No. 1:13-cv-01927-RLY-MJD — Richard L. Young, Judge. ____________________

ARGUED APRIL 10, 2017 — DECIDED JANUARY 2, 2018 ____________________

Before EASTERBROOK, ROVNER, and SYKES, Circuit Judges. SYKES, Circuit Judge. E.F. Transit, Inc., is a motor carrier licensed in the state of Indiana to transport beer, wine, and liquor. In an effort to expand its business, E.F. Transit en- tered into talks with Indiana Wholesale Wine & Liquor Company, a liquor and wine wholesaler, to deliver its wares. Twice the parties sought a regulatory green light from the Indiana Alcohol and Tobacco Commission, the agency tasked with enforcing Indiana’s alcoholic beverage laws. 2 No. 16-3641 Twice the Commission noted concerns with the arrangement under Indiana’s prohibited-interest laws, which require strict separation of beer and liquor wholesaling. The obstacle was that E.F. Transit shares the same ownership and manage- ment as Monarch Beverage Company, Inc., a licensed beer and wine wholesaler. Based on the overlap, E.F. Transit might be deemed to hold an interest in Monarch’s beer wholesaling permit, which might in turn block its venture with Indiana Wholesale. The Commission never definitively ruled on the pro- posed arrangement, but the regulatory cloud scuttled the budding business relationship. E.F. Transit and Indiana Wholesale broke off their plan. E.F. Transit then brought this suit for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, arguing that enforcement of Indiana’s prohibited-interest statutes is preempted by federal law. The district court dismissed the claim as unripe based on the aborted business relationship and regulatory uncertainty. E.F. Transit appealed. In the meantime, separate litigation moving through the state courts was poised to resolve the predicate state-law question: In light of their shared ownership and manage- ment, does E.F. Transit hold an interest in Monarch’s beer wholesaling permit under Indiana’s prohibited-interest laws? While this appeal has been underway, the Indiana Supreme Court delivered an affirmative answer, holding that E.F. Transit and Monarch are “not just … two separate entities conducting close business transactions” but are “practically one in the same” under the prohibited-interest laws. Ind. Alcohol & Tobacco Comm’n v. Spirited Sales, LLC, 79 N.E.3d 371, 379 (Ind. 2017). No. 16-3641 3

That ruling—and the standing threat of prosecution—are enough to remove any ripeness barrier to this suit. E.F. Transit need not violate the law and expose itself to punishment to raise its preemption claim. We reverse and remand for further proceedings. I. Background Indiana regulates alcohol distribution “along two dimen- sion: three tiers of the distribution chain (producers, whole- salers, and retailers) and three kinds of alcohol (beer, liquor, and wine).” Monarch Beverage Co. v. Cook, 861 F.3d 678, 680 (7th Cir. 2017). The state regulatory scheme generally pro- hibits permit holders in one tier of the distribution chain from holding an interest in a permit in another tier. Id. And state law also limits the issuance of permits within the distri- bution tier by type of alcohol. Id. As relevant here, Indiana’s prohibited-interest laws require the separation of beer and liquor wholesaling by prohibiting the ho