. Suppose the Tennessee legislature passed a law that states that only Tennessee made whiskey, including whiskey subcategories including but not limited to bourbon, can be sold in the State of Tennessee. A Kentucky based group of bourbon distillers called the Kentucky Distillers' Association (KDA) files a law suit against the State of Tennessee to prevent the enforcement of the law and to challenge its constitutionality. The KDA claims the Tennessee law imposes an undue burden on interstate commerce. The KDA files suit in federal court and successfully challenges the Tennessee law which is found to be unconstitutional in federal district court. The State of Tennessee files an appeal. A. The 6 th Circuit Court of Appeal is hearing the appeal. While researching the issues raised, the Court finds two cases, New York State Brewers Association vs. Wisconsin, 123 F.2d 456 (7th Cir. 1990) and Texas Wine and Grape Growers Association vs. California, 234 F.2d 567 (9th Cir. 1991). In NYSB v Wisconsin, the law being challenged stated that only Wisconsin brewed beer could be sold in Wisconsin. Similarly, in TWGGA v California, the law being challenged stated that only California fermented wine could be sold in California. In both cases, the state law survived constitutional challenges as an undue burden on interstate commerce (the Courts found the laws were not unduly burdensome). Based on the above facts, should the Court find the Tennessee law to be unduly burdensome or not unduly burdensome? Explain why and/or why not? B. Assume the Court also found a case, Florida Citrus Growers vs. California, 456 U.S. 789 (2015), in which the FCG challenged a Californian law, as an undue burden on interstate commerce, when the Californian law stated that only orange juice made and produced in California could be sold in California. The Court ruling in FCG v. California, held that the law was an undue burden on interstate commerce; specifically, the Court found that a state cannot limit the sale of products from other states simply to insulate resident producers and makers from out of state competition. Does the ruling in FCG v. California, change your response to whether or not the Court should find the Tennessee law to be unduly burdensome or not unduly burdensome? Explain why and/or why not?