Solved: 1 a Why did the Granholm court strike down the

1. a. Why did the Granholm court strike down the New York and Michigan laws?

b. What legal and practical justifications were presented by New York and Michigan in defense
of their laws?

2. a. What choice faced the states affected by this decision?

b. What practical effect has this decision likely had on the wine industry?

3. In 1988, Oneida and Herkimer counties in upstate New York created a Solid Waste
Management Authority and enacted a “flow control ordinance” requiring that all waste
generated within their borders was to be delivered to the Authority’s newly created waste
processing facilities. In 1995, six waste haulers and a trade association sued the Authority and
the counties claiming that the flow control ordinance and associated regulations violated the
Commerce Clause by discriminating against interstate commerce. The plaintiffs provided
evidence that they could dispose of the waste much less expensively at out-of-state facilities.
How would you rule in this case? Explain.

4. North Dakota rules required those bringing liquor into the state to file a monthly report, and
out-of-state distillers selling to federal enclaves (military bases, in this instance) were required to
label each item indicating that it was for consumption only within the enclave. The United States
challenged those rules after sellers said they would discontinue dealing with the military bases
or they would raise their prices to meet the cost of dealing with the two rules.

a. What were the constitutional foundations of the federal government’s challenge?

b. What were the state’s reasons for adopting the rules?

c. Decide. Explain.

5. Premium Standard Farms, a large Missouri hog-raising operation, was pumping manure
through a two-mile-long pipe into Iowa to be spread on a farm whose operator sought the
manure for fertilizer. Iowa citizens objected and asked Attorney General Tom Miller to act. Could
the Iowa attorney general stop the pumping? Explain.

These consolidated cases present challenges to state laws regulating the sale of wine from out-
of-state wineries to consumers in Michigan and New York. The details and mechanics of the two
regulatory schemes differ, but the object and effect of the laws are the same: to allow instate
wineries to sell wine directly to consumers in that state but to prohibit out-of-state wineries from
doing so, or, at the least, to make direct sales impractical from an economic standpoint. It is
evident that the object and design of the Michigan and New York statutes is to grant in-state
wineries a competitive advantage over wineries located beyond the states’ borders.

Reach out to freelance2040@yahoo.com for enquiry.

 ANSWER
https://solvedquest.com/1-a-why-did-the-granholm-court-strike-down-the/

Reach out to freelance2040@yahoo.com for enquiry.

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)