In "Craig v. Boren" (1976), the Supreme Court found that analysis under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment had not been affected by the passage of the Twenty-first Amendment. Although the Court did not specify whether the Twenty-first Amendment could provide an exception to any other constitutional protections outside of the Commerce Clause, it acknowledged "the relevance of the Twenty-first Amendment to other constitutional provisions becomes increasingly doubtful". Likewise, it has been held that Section2 of the Twenty-first Amendment does not affect the Supremacy Clause or the Establishment Clause. "Larkin v. Grendel's Den, Inc.", 459 U.S. 116, 122, n. 5 (1982). However, the "Craig v. Boren" Court did distinguish two characteristics of state laws permitted by the Amendment, which otherwise might have run afoul of the Constitution. The constitutional issues in each centered or touched upon:(1) ""importation of intoxicants", a regulatory area where the State's authority under the Twenty-first Amendment is transparently clear"; and (2) ""purely economic matters" that traditionally merit only the mildest review under the Fourteenth Amendment". As to the Dormant Commerce Clause in particular, the Court clarified that, while not a "pro tanto" repeal, the Twenty-First Amendment nonetheless "primarily created an exception to the normal operation of the Commerce Clause".