1. The court held that the Massachusetts statute discriminated against out-of-state wineries “by design” (intentionally). How can a court determine legislative intent?

2. Suppose that most “small” wineries, as defined by the 2006 Massachusetts law, were located out of state. How could the law be discriminatory in that situation?

The ratification of the Twenty-first Amendment ended Prohibition and gave states substantial control over the regulation of alcoholic beverages. Most states, including Massachusetts, then imposed a three-tier system to control the sale of alcoholic beverages within their territories. The hallmark of the three-tier system is a rigid, tightly regulated separation between producers, wholesalers, and retailers of alcoholic beverages. Producers can ordinarily sell alcoholic beverages only to licensed in-state wholesalers. Wholesalers then must obtain licenses to sell to retailers. Retailers, which include stores, taverns, restaurants, and bars, must in turn obtain licenses to sell to consumers or to serve alcohol on their premises. Recently, as to wine, Massachusetts has adjusted the separation between these three tiers