A group of winemakers from California and several Massachusetts residents challenged a Massachusetts law that distinguishes how large wineries and small wineries may distribute their wines in the state of Massachusetts. The Massachusetts law defined wineries that produced over 30,000 gallons of wine as "large" and allowed these wineries either to sell directly to consumers or to sell through wholesalers, but not both. On the other hand, "small" wineries could use both distribution methods. Conveniently, all wineries in Massachusetts were below the 30,000 gallon cap. Thus, the only wineries being blocked from certain forms of distribution were wineries from outside of the state. These out-of-state winemakers decided to sue the state of Massachusetts, claiming that the state's laws on this matter violated the commerce clause by giving in-state businesses an unfair advantage over out-of-state businesses. The district court concluded that this Massachusetts law unconstitutionally discriminated against interstate commerce and ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, granting injunctive relief. The defendant representatives of the state of Massachusetts appealed this decision. How do you think the court ruled in the appeal? Why? [Family Winemakers of California v. Jenkins, United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit 592 F. 3d 1 (2010).]