Granholm V. Heald: Case Study

In a more present case in 2005 brought before the Supreme Court in Granholm V. Heald (Granholm v. Heald, 544 U.S. 460 (2005)), it was in question whether states should allow the direct shipment of wine to the customer, whether the winery is in the same state or not. “The Court held that Section 2 of the 21st Amendment did not give states the power to discriminate against out-of-state wine sellers in ways that would otherwise violate the Commerce Clause.” (UMKC, n.d.) Meaning that it is unfair for local wineries to sell directly to the consumer but out of state wineries could not be sold directly to the consumer and had to be bought through a wholesaler, violating interstate commerce by doing so, though if the state wishes to ban this all together they can but that would limit local wineries as well. The 21st amendment constantly was interpreted as how much power do the states have over the government, how far can the states go to regulate alcohol even if it impedes on the Bill of Rights. As seen earlier the states clearly had more power over the course of time, the Supreme Court decided that even though the 21stamendment did give states a certain degree of power, it would not take away some basic rights every citizen has.
Other problems started to arise outside of supreme court cases with the …show more content…
The 21st amendment also gave states power to control if they want to allow alcohol in their borders, and to directly control the manufacture and distribution of the alcohol if they so choose to do so within their borders. It asks the question when do state powers end and when do government powers begin, just like in the current marijuana prohibition. The 21st amendment is a still large part of United States today and many don’t realize how important it really is, and what the United states would be like today without