In an action by the plaintiffs, a group of California winemakers and Massachusetts residents, challenging Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 138 which establishes differential methods by which wineries distribute wines in Massachusetts, district court's grant of injunctive relief is affirmed where: 1) section 19F violates the Commerce Clause because the effect of its particular gallonage cap is to change the competitive balance between in-state and out-of-state wineries in a way that benefits Massachusetts's wineries and significantly burdens out-of-state competitors; 2) the statutory context, legislative history, and other factors also yield the unavoidable conclusion that this discrimination was purposeful; and 3) the Twenty-first Amendment cannot save section 19F from invalidation under the Commerce Clause.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
Decided January 14, 2010
Before: Lynch, Chief Judge, Stahl, Circuit Judge, and DiClerico, District Judge
Opinion by Lynch, Chief Judge
For Appellant: David Hadas, Assistant Attorney General, Martha Coakley, Attorney General of the State of Massachusetts, and Thomas A. Barnico, Assistant Attorney General