Granholm vs. Heald, Case Study Example

The issue

The court was trying to resolve arguments between the government of Michigan and New York. The two states were arguing that Section 2 of the 21st Amendment permitted them the Carte Blanche to control liquor. Both states justified their arguments claiming that the regulations of wineries going out of state would block the shipment of alcohol to juveniles. According to the states’ governments, this would be a source of valid state purpose. The New York government had emerged as the winner in the Second Circuit Court of the federal while the Michigan government had lost in the Sixth Circuit of the court. The U.S Supreme Court consolidated and ruled the case.

The rule

Section 2 of the U.S 21^st amendment prohibits states from regulating direct wine shipment on conditions that discriminate favoring in-state producers. Therefore, the position of both states was not consistent with the precedents of the court and the history of the Amendments.

Application

After consolidated the case, the U.S Supreme court came up with a 5-4 decision, which state that the states’ laws were unconstitutional. According to the 21^st amendment context, the court saw that it was written that the states return to the previous status quo. The court saw that the states had the freedom to control alcohol in any manner. This included entire banning of alcoholic beverages within the state. Before prohibition, these states were not allowed to violate the commerce clause and the introduction of the 21^st amendment was not purposed to grant these states this power.

The Conclusion

The U.S Supreme Court held that the laws of New York and Michigan which permitted in-state wineries to ship wine to consumers directly but hindered shipping of wine out-of-state directly to consumers, were unconstitutional.