A Massachusetts law that sharply restricts out-of-state winemakers from shipping their products directly to consumers in the state is unconstitutional, a federal appeals court ruled.

Thursday's decision by the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold a lower court ruling could open the door for connoisseurs in Massachusetts to purchase more of their favorite wines online or by mail order from domestic producers.

The law, approved by the Legislature in 2006 over the veto of then-Gov. Mitt Romney, created a multi-tiered system in which wineries that produce more than 30,000 gallons a year must decide whether to sell retail in Massachusetts through an in-state wholesaler or apply for a license to ship wines directly to consumers. They cannot, however, do both.

The cap does not affect any of the nearly three dozen wineries based in Massachusetts, all of which are small and produce under the 30,000-gallon limit.

"We hold that (the law) 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," the appellate court wrote in its decision.

A federal court turned to historians Tuesday as it considers the constitutionality of Proposition 8, an amendment that banned same-sex marriage in California.

Harvard professor Nancy Cott told a federal court in San Francisco that child rearing was only one of several purposes of marriage, not "the central or defining purpose," the Los Angeles Times reports.

She noted that that divorce rates rose steeply in the 1960s and marriage continued to be viewed negatively in the 1970s as heterosexuals advocated "open marriages" and "swinging." But divorce rates hit a plateau in the 1980s, and marriage is now held in high esteem in the U.S., she said.

She attributed the higher status of marriage to advocacy by the Christian right and the growing clamoring of gays and lesbians to participate in it.

During cross-examination, lawyers for the Proposition 8 campaign noted that racial restrictions on marriage in the U.S. were never as "uniform" or widespread as the ban on same-sex marriage. He also asked Cott if it was possible to predict the consequences same-sex marriage would have on society.

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case later this week that some are touting as pivotal in the business of sports.

American Needle Inc. v. the NFL, a supposed David vs. Goliath-type case that could help define the NFL's antitrust status, is on the docket for Jan. 13.

It dates back to 2004, when American Needle, an Illinois-based hat maker, brought an antitrust case against NFL, claiming the league was using its monopoly power to muscle it out of its fair share of revenue for caps it made bearing NFL logos. The NFL won the case at the trial and appellate levels, but American Needle appealed all the way to the Supreme Court.

An appellate court tossed a $20 million award against a former jet company that secretly videotaped Michael Jackson and his attorneys during a 2003 flight.

The 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled Monday that the award was excessive and that Jeffrey Borer, former owner of the now-defunct XtraJet\, shouldn't have to pay it to attorneys Mark Geragos and Pat Harris, The Associated Press reported.

The three-judge panel sent the case back to the trial judge who ruled in favor of the attorneys in March.
Geragos, Harris and Jackson sued for invasion of privacy after being secretly videotaped when Jackson surrendered on charges of molestation.

The Supreme Court on Monday morning temporarily blocked a federal judge in San Francisco from showing on YouTube proceedings from a trial that will determine whether a ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.

The court's decision is not the final word; the stay sought by same-sex marriage opponents expires Wednesday. The court said that will permit justices "further consideration." The trial is scheduled to start Monday.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer was the only justice to object.

"I agree with the court that further consideration is warranted, and I am pleased that the stay is time-limited," Breyer wrote. But he said the court's standards for issuing a stay were not met because there is not a likelihood of "irreparable harm" if the proceedings were available on the Internet.

Two bay area couples are asking Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker to rule that same-sex marriage is a right embedded in the Constitution and that it was violated last year when California voters passed Proposition 8, a ballot measure confining matrimony to members of the opposite sex.

A federal appeals court gave notice Friday it likely would reject the Federal Communications Commission’s authority to sanction Comcast for throttling peer-to-peer applications.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit suggested as much during oral arguments from the FCC and Comcast. The Philadelphia-based cable concern is appealing the agency’s 2008 decision ordering it to stop hampering the peer-to-peer service BitTorrent as a traffic-management practice.

The move was in response to complaints Comcast was sending fake signals to users of BitTorrent, a bandwidth-heavy protocol often used to pirate copyright content.