Case Briefs: Granholm V. Heald

2) Would it be a violation of equal protection for a state to impose a higher tax on outof-state companies doing business in the state than it imposes on in-state companies if the only reason for the tax is to protect the local firms from out-ofstate competition? Explain.

A group of California Winemakers producing more than 30,000 gallons of wine challenged Massachusetts law (19F) that determined how “large” wine makers such as themselves could distribute wine in the state of Massachusetts. The winemakers argued that the states laws blocked out-of-state vendors from competing in Massachusetts since their laws stipulated that “small” wineries could distribute their products either via wholesalers or directly to consumers, whereas “large” wineries were limited to one form of distribution. Moreover, the California Winemakers cited the dormant commerce clause as the basis of their claim due to the fact that all of the wineries in Massachusetts were considered “small” and therefore the state’s law gave the in-state businesses an unfair advantage over out-of-state businesses. Does the states distribution law violate the Dormant commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution?

The Supreme Court and Chief Justice Marshall rejected Ogden’s argument with a unanimous (6-0). The justices agreed that the Commerce Clause did, indeed, give Congress the power to oversee the operation of steamboats between New York and New Jersey. Hence, the license given to Gibbons by the government to run a ferry service antiquated the license to run a ferry service given to Ogden by the state of New York. As a result of this decision, State-issued ownership of island rivers and channels ceased and commercial competition was heartened. The Gibbons decision established

During the 1970’s, Connecticut was a very prosperous state with growing numbers of minorities. Many of these minorities would tend to live in the same neighborhoods which would lead to other races, like whites, leaving an area and moving to a new area away from these minorities. We learned about white flight in The Children in Room E4, but this has been relevant for many decades. These whites may have not moved out of state, but just away from the minority neighborhoods to places like the suburbs. This tended to cause property values to decrease in the minority neighborhoods, making it cheaper for more minorities to move in, but also harder for the minorities to move to areas where white people may be living like the suburbs. With decreased property values beginning to happen, the property taxes were also beginning to decrease. This is what led to the development of the case Horton v. Meskill. Also during this time, the United States was barely a decade old from all of the segregation it had experienced during the 1960’s. the segregation had an influence on why whites were moving away from the minorities, which was causing these public school property tax funding’s to be low. Even though segregation de jure was outlawed at this time, there were still people living by segregation de facto. The people did not realize this at this time in the 1970’s, but it eventually built up momentum and became relevant in the Connecticut court case Sheff v. O’Neill.

1919 - The states ratified the 18th Amendment, barring the manufacture, sale or transport of intoxicating beverages. Congress passed the Volstead Act, which gave the Commissioner of Internal Revenue the primary responsibility for enforcement of Prohibition (Internal Revenue Service, 2013)

How did the Plessy decision change the way laws were made in the North and South?

This problem was further worsened by the inability of the government to enforce taxes. Rhode Island’s letter to Congress clearly depicts the absence of federal control over state legislatures, as Rhode Island “[rejected] the recommendation of Congress, respecting an impost on imported goods” (doc A). Because each state retained its sovereignty, they could easily accept or reject the demands of Congress. This lack of federal power substantially restrained the government in carrying out its

A controversy arose between Ogden, who had obtained the license from Fulton and Livingston, and Gibbons, who had obtained his license through the United States government. Ogden petitioned the New York Court to “enjoin” Gibbons, his formal partner, from continuing with this business in that state. The Court favored Ogden and granted the injunction and Gibbons appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court upheld the right for Congress to have vast powers. According to the Supreme Court, Congress can regulate who can enter into a monopoly and this case made a distinction between interstate and intrastate within a state. Although the federal government has not been specifically delegated the power to regulate commerce within a certain state that does not mean that the federal government cannot regulate a states commerce. When the Commerce Clause has a broad interpretation, intrastate regulations are often included. Commerce is more than just buying or selling; it is intercoursing, which according to this case does include such stipulations as navigation. Interpreting commerce in a broad sense has thus established what is known as a Federal police power. Police powers refer to or identify the inherent authority of the state government to regulate individually liberty, freedom for health and welfare and safety. The Federal government does not have police power, but it can be seen as evidence in this case how the Federal

1) What were the legal issues in this case? What did the appeals court decide?

In 1828, Congress passed a protective tariff that made the southern states extremely angry, because they felt it only benefited the northern states. Calhoun argued the federal government only existed for the will of the states, so if a state found a federal law unconstitutional and did not support it, the states have the right to "nullify" that law within its borders. This is similar to the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions because they stated that the Alien and Sedation acts were unconstitutional. It argued that the states had the right to declare unconstitutional acts. Also, both of these were written anonymously at the time by vice presidents, Calhoun and Jefferson.

The Supreme Court sided against Homer. The court believed that Homer Plessy was violating the “Separate Car Act”, which

Appellant contends that the district court erred in convicting her under the malicious-punishment statue as well as in ruling that the statute does not require proof of bodily harm. Accordingly, if proof of bodily harm is not required for conviction of malicious punishment, the statute is unconstitutionally vague.

In the same year, the Congress submitted the 18th Amendment. This had banned the manufacture, transportation, and sale of intoxicating liquors, for state ratification. Even though the Congress had stipulated a seven-year time limit for the process. The amendment had received support of the necessary three-quarters of US states in only eleven months.

The first time being in an Arizona supermarket, what really stood out is the wine, and spirits that could be bought from inside the supermarket. It’s something that I was not used to seeing, because in New York wine/spirits are separately sold at a liquor store. Not only is it alcohol sold separately, but the times alcohol could be served too. Between New York and Arizona based off the differences with serving hours, and wine/spirits are separately sold relate back to why these laws exist. Looking into this question economically, and analyzing the opportunity cost, behavior of the government, producers, and consumers helps understand why there is a difference where alcohol could be sold, and bought involving New York and Arizona.

This industry has seen very limited growth since 1986. Based on Exhibit 4 (C-271, the total wine consumption in the US) and Exhibit 5 (C-271, per capita wine consumption in the US) the wine industry is in the maturity stage. It could