The appeals panel on Tuesday considered whether the Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission is required to revoke all licenses held by a licensee that also holds a certificate of compliance under G.L. c.138 §18B.

Joshua Seagal, counsel for the licensee, told the court the statutory phrase "shall be cause for the revocation of all certificates and licenses held by the certificate holder" provides authorization but not an unqualified mandate, and he relied on Cleary‑type precedent that treated similar language as permissive. "Shall be cause does not require a result; permits one," Seagal argued.

David Marks, assistant attorney general representing the ABCC, urged deference to the agency where the statute is ambiguous and the commission’s interpretation is reasonable. Marks said the statutory purpose—preventing vertical integration in the alcoholic‑beverage distribution chain—supports a mandatory reading that allows the commission to revoke all licenses in the statutorily described circumstances.

The justices focused on two issues: (1) whether the statutory phrase is ambiguous as a matter of law, and (2) if ambiguous, whether and how much deference to afford the ABCC’s interpretation given administrative‑law standards. Counsel debated applicability of Cleary and other appellate decisions and whether the commission’s enforcement position constituted a reasoned interpretation entitled to deference. The panel took the matter under advisement.