Question

The Granhoim v. Heald case determined that state laws violate the Commerce Clause if They force in-state businesses and out-of-state business to compete. O They do not give a competitive advantage to in-state businesses. O They mandate differential treatment that burdens out-of-state businesses. O They give citizens equal access to the markets of other states.

Answer 1

The Granholm v.Heald case determined that state laws violate the commerce clause if:They mandate differential treatment that burdens out-of-state businesses.

This was a crucial and a very decisive decison delivered by the US supreme court regarding the commerce clause in US.The judgement was given in reference to two important laws of US.The 21st Amendment of US constitution that empowers the state to regulate the business and commerce laws was being used by the government to discriminate between the in-state and out-of-state wineries.,As per this the in-state winery was allowed to deliver wines directly to the customers but out-of-state wine dealers were not allowed to do so.This gave the in-state wineries an upper competitive edge and posed a danger for the out-of-state dealers as this has made the wholesalers very powerful and if they deny to purchase wines from an out of state wine,then that dealer might face the danger of completely closing down his business.This also violated the DCC i.e.Dormant Commerce clause.So an adjudication was given by the Supreme Court against this and at the same time it made it clear that the state still has the authority to regulte the same as before.