"To be clear, there are a lot of potential barriers in the way of getting from Point A to Point B to have 'Amazon Prime Booze,'" says Jarrett Dieterle, a senior fellow and director of commercial freedom at the R Street Institute, a think tank that identifies as non-partisan, but is labeled by others as center-right. "But it's conceivable on the horizon."

Here is the biggest takeaway from the SCOTUS ruling: it’s a potential first step toward challenging three-tier laws that could lead to a new kind of nationwide wholesaler. Starting with the Granholm decision and continuing with this week’s decision, these rulings are beginning to chip away at Prohibition-era laws that minimized, if not prevented altogether, the ability of national companies (like today’s Amazon or Walmart) from fully engaging in the sale and delivery of alcohol. During arguments leading up to this week’s ruling, Justice Neil Gorsuch wondered aloud if changing residency standards would actually create an "Amazon of liquor.”

What Granholm did over a decade ago was give producers (in that case, wineries) the ability to sell across state lines. So far, Dieterle says, states have taken a narrow interpretation of the ruling: wineries could take part, but not necessarily other alcohol manufacturers.

This time around, the Thomas decision is about retailers preventing states from discriminating between in- or out-of-state commercial enterprises. It opens up the future possibility of companies like Amazon using their massive delivery networks to sell alcohol. The argument against loosening restrictions was that the Granholm precedent only applied to producers and their products, but in this decision, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that there was "no sound basis for this distinction."

"...Granholm never said that its reading of history or its Commerce Clause analysis was limited to discrimination against products or producers," he continued. "On the contrary, the Court stated that the Clause prohibits state discrimination against 'all out-of-state economic interests.'"

In practical terms, it’s a court ruling that pushes alcohol commerce forward.

"We can get every product at our doors in two days, and alcohol is one of the biggest exceptions to that," says Dieterle, author of the forthcoming book Drink For Your Country, a history of U.S. liquor laws. "This could be one of the first steps toward that."

This is, of course, what Amazon has already started to explore. Earlier this year, it hired a lobbyist to directly "help lead state and local engagement and public policy activities" related to alcohol regulation. There’s still a long way to go before Prime members in Pennsylvania can order a merlot from California with two-day delivery, however. Most notably, states will need to start addressing a variety of decades-old laws related to alcohol. They’ll also need to update regulations to ensure they’re not in violation of this most recent court decision, which prevents state governments from discriminating against alcohol retailers. (There’s even that pesky issue that the U.S. Postal Service still can’t ship booze at all.)

“There is still going to be a lot of litigation and follow-ups because so much of our laws are under these immediate, post-Prohibition rules that make no sense in our modern economy,” Dieterle says.

It’s also worth remembering that the online retailer had previously tried—and failed—in this arena with Amazon Wine, which functioned as a broker that allowed wineries to sell directly to customers through Amazon. There might be the assumption that Amazon is ready to blow up and take over wholesaling, but they’re not the only ones who stand to benefit from this new court ruling.