The state of Michigan passed a law that allowed wineries within the state to ship wine directly to Michigan consumers without having to go through a wholesaler.The same law prohibited out-of-state wineries from doing the same.In effect,the cost of out-of-state wine increased as it had to go through a wholesaler,thereby providing incentives for Michigan consumers to purchase Michigan wine.However,in 2005,the Supreme Court ruled in Granholm v.Heald that the law was unconstitutional as it discriminated against out-of-state wineries.Which clause of the Constitution was used to declare the Michigan law unconstitutional?

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The commerce clause of the Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate commerce between states. The Michigan law discriminated against out-of-state wineries by requiring them to go through a wholesaler, while allowing in-state wineries to ship directly to consumers. This violated the commerce clause, which prohibits discriminatory regulations that hinder interstate commerce.

The privileges and immunities clause of the Constitution prohibits states from discriminating against out-of-state residents or businesses. By allowing in-state wineries to ship directly to consumers but not allowing out-of-state wineries to do the same, the Michigan law violated the privileges and immunities clause.

The State of Michigan Passed a Law That Allowed Wineries