A state government enacts a law requiring all out-of-state wineries to obtain a special license before selling their products within the state. An out-of-state winery challenges this requirement, arguing that it restricts interstate commerce. How should the court evaluate this challenge under the Commerce Clause?
The law is permissible as it applies equally to both in-state and out-of-state wineries.
The law imposes an undue burden on trade between states without a legitimate justification.
The law is upheld because it addresses a legitimate public health concern related to wine production.
The law is constitutional because states have the authority to regulate businesses within their borders to protect local industries.
The correct answer is that the law imposes an undue burden on trade between states without a legitimate justification, thereby overstepping the state's regulatory authority. This assessment aligns with restrictions intended to prevent states from enacting protectionist measures that could interfere with the free exchange of goods across state lines.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What is the Commerce Clause?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What does 'undue burden' mean in this context?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
How do courts determine if a law discriminates against interstate commerce?