$69.$ Using the same facts as Question # $67$ & $68.$ The appellate court is hearing the appeal. While researching the issues raised, the Court finds two cases, New York State Brewers Association vs$.$ Wisconsin, $123$ F$\mathrm{.}2$d $456(7$th Cir. $1990)$ and Texas Wine and Grape Growers Association vs$.$ California, $234$ F$\mathrm{.}2$d $567(9$th Cir. $1991).$ In NYSB v Wisconsin, the law being challenged stated that only Wisconsin brewed beer could be sold in Wisconsin. Similarly, in TWGGA v California, the law being challenged stated that only California fermented wine could be sold in California. In both cases, the state law survived constitutional challenges as an undue burden on interstate commerce $($the Courts found the laws were not unduly burdensome$).$ Based on the above facts, answer the following questions.

A$.$ Should the Court find the Tennessee law to be unduly burdensome or not unduly burdensome? Why and$/$or why not?

B$.$ Assume the Court also found a case, Florida Citrus Growers vs$.$ California, $456$ U$.$S$.789(2015),$ in which the FCG challenged a Californian law, as an undue burden on interstate commerce,

when the Californian law stated that only orange juice made and produced in California could be sold in California. The Court ruling in FCG v$.$ California, held that the law was an undue burden on interstate commerce; specifically, the Court found that a state cannot limit the sale of products from other states simply to insulate resident producers and makers from out of state competition. Does the ruling in FCG v$.$ California, change your response to whether or not the Court should find the Tennessee law to be unduly burdensome or not unduly burdensome? Why and$/$or why not?