The court therefore found that there was no legitimate purpose for the laws other than to discriminate against out-of-state wineries. I agree with the Court's decision. The Court ruled that the 21st Amendment was intended to restore the state's rights as they were before Prohibition. These rights did not include the right to violate the Commerce Clause with regards to the distribution of alcohol. Congress has the right to regulate interstate commerce, not the states. The states may set their own regulations with respect to alcohol, but these regulations must be applied evenly.

The Commerce clause was put into place to prevent states from competing against one another, in particular by way of protectionism. This is necessary for the proper function of internal trade. These two states sought to control interstate trade, hiding behind the 21st Amendment. They misinterpreted the mandate granted to them by that amendment, however. There is nothing in the 21st Amendment that...

Such overruling, therefore, cannot be inferred by the states. That the states could not provide any legitimate purpose for their laws signals their intent to circumvent the Commerce Clause in order to protect their own industries from outside competition, in direct violation of the wishes of the authors of the Constitution. The dissenting opinions were of the nature that the 21st Amendment did give states absolute power over alcohol, however, I disagree that this included the power to overrule the Commerce Clause as that was not explicitly stated (Tanford, n.d.).
Works Cited:

Granholm v. Heald 125 S. Ct. 1885 544 U.S. 460 (2005). Retrieved April 16, 2010 from http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1116.ZS.html

Tanford, J. (no date). Granholm v. Heald. Duke Law. Retrieved April 16, 2010 from http://www.law.duke.edu/publiclaw/supremecourtonline/commentary/gravhea