The Commerce Clause allows Congress to regulate interstate commerce including state-imposed statutes -- particularly when they are discriminatory or create barriers to trade. With this in mind, please respond to the following questions posted below in bold.

Background - -Summarized here for convenience. (Additionalinformation is provided in the text on page 112 under "State Legislative Power".) Though not required, you may access the full case using this citation: Granholm v. Heald, 544 U.S. 460 (2005).

FACTS:

Michigan and New York permitted in-state wineries to sell directly to consumers but required out-of-state producers to sell to wholesalers two steps removed from retail sales. This resulted in a much longer distribution channel for out-of-state wineries to get their products to the consumer.

Each of these state statutes created an impossible barrier for many small vineyards. Key problems:

• Inability to attract wholesalers (not enough volume produced )
• Increased cost (additional layers of overhead associated w/"middlemen")

So... no access to the local markets.

Local residents and out-of-state wineries sued claiming a violation of the Commerce Clause.

Result: ==> "Split in the Circuits"

• 6^th Circuit Court of Appeals held the statutes violated the Commerce Clause

• 2^nd Circuit Court of Appeals declared the statutes valid

Supreme Court accepted the case to ensure uniform application of the Constitution.

******************************************************************

- Describe the state statutes that were challenged in this case.

- Which aspect of the Commerce Clause does this case involve?

- Why is this aspect of the clause important? - How is it an outgrowth of our nation's experience under the Articles of Confederation?

- What is a "split in the circuits"?

- How did these statutes discriminate against interstate commerce?

- How did the states justify these laws? Were facts or evidence provided to support their argument?

- What was the result?