Question

Granholm, Governor on Michigan v Heald 2005: Michigan law allowed in-state wineries to sell directly to consumers, but out-of-state wineries were required to use an instate wholesaler. The US Supreme Court held that this law violated the interstate commerce clause because preferential trade is destructive.

Is that a valid use of the commerce clause? Isn’t it acceptable for a state to protect its own by giving it economic advantages over out of state companies? Isn’t it thinking like that which American politicians have cited in their attempts to protect against ballooning imports and deficits?

Answer 1

Indeed Yes! In a 5-4 decision delivered by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Court ruled that the laws of both states violated the commerce clause by supporting in-state wineries at the expense of out-of-state wineries and doing so without the 21st Amendment's permission. The object of the 21st Amendment was not the State authority to participate in such economic discrimination. However, in recent situations, the amendment did not save state statutes the ignored certain Constitutional provisions.