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?
3. Suppose that the state had only required the out- of- state wineries to obtain a special license that was readily available. Would this have affected the outcome of the case? Explain.
4. When it is difficult to predict how the law might be applied—as in cases arising under the dormant commerce clause— what is the best course of conduct for a business?
The ratification of the Twenty-first Amendment ended Prohibitionb 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 license in-state wholesalers. Wholesalers then must obtain licenses to sell to retailers.