South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 

Supreme Court of the United States

1987

Chapter

3

Title

The Scope of Congresss Powers

Page

293

Topic

Regulation through Taxing, Spending, and the War Power

Quick Notes

The Federal government was attempting to withhold federal highway funds from States that did not pass a minimum drinking age of 21. States sued, claiming that Congress was acting unconstitutionally because under the 21st Amendment, the power to regulate alcohol fell mainly to the States. The US Supreme Court upheld the law, and found that there were several conditions to deciding if a law met the conditions to be legal under the Spending Clause.

Spending Clause Conditions.

1.     The tax must be in pursuit of the general welfare.

2.     It must be unambiguous. There can't be a failed understanding of what is expected of the States.

3.     It must be related to the Federal interest in particular national projects of programs.

4.     It must not violate any other Constitutional provisions.

Rule

o         Congress may induce states to prevent underage drinking by withholding federal highway funds from states that do not prohibit drivers under age 21 from drinking.

o         So as long as the only penalty is loss of funds that are related to the congressional program, there should not be a constitutional problem.

Book Name

Constitutional Law : Stone, Seidman, Sunstein, Tushnet.  ISBN:  978-0-7355-7719-0

Issue

o         Whether it is unconstitutional if Congress withholds federal funds from States that do not comply with the statute?  No, several conditions are required. 

Procedure

Trial

o         The trial court rejected petitioners claims

Appellant

o         Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit affirmed

Supreme

o         Affirmed

Facts

Discussion

Key Phrases

Rules

Pl South Dakota

Df Dole (SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION)

Description

o          A statute directed the Secretary of Transportation to withhold a portion of the federal high funds from states that did not prohibit the purchase of alcohol by people under the age of twenty-one.

o         Congress used this technique because of uncertainty about it power to impose a national minimum drinking age directly.

o         The problem is that the 21st amendment had been treated as giving the States broad control over regulations of alcoholic beverages.

In this case

o         Petitioner State permitted persons 19 years of age or older to purchase beer pursuant to S.D. Codified Laws. 

o         However USCS sect. 158 permitted the reduction of federal highway funds otherwise allocable to a state if the state had a minimum drinking age below 21. 

o         Petitioner sought a declaratory judgment that sect. 158 violated Congresss spending power, U.S. Const. art. I, sect. 8, cl. 1, and that it violated 21 Amendment.

o         The trial court rejected petitioners claims, and the Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit affirmed.

This is the leading contemporary case construing Congresss power under the spending clause

[Chief Justice Rehnquist]

Spend power of Congress is not unlimited

o         The spending power granted to Congress under U.S. Const. art. I, sect. 8, cl. 1 is of course not unlimited, but is instead subject to several general restrictions.

General restrictions of Congresss Limitations

1.     The first of these limitations is derived from the language of the Constitution itself: the exercise of the spending power must be in pursuit of the general welfare. In considering whether a particular expenditure is intended to serve general public purposes, courts should defer substantially to the judgment of Congress.

2.     Second, if Congress desires to condition the states' receipt of federal funds, it must do so unambiguously, enabling the states to exercise their choice knowingly, cognizant of the consequences of their participation.

3.     Third, conditions on federal grants might be illegitimate if they are unrelated to the federal interest in particular national projects or programs.

4.     Finally, other constitutional provisions may provide an independent bar to the conditional grant of federal funds

Twenty-one-year old age condition satisfied all requirements

o         Served the general welfare because different drinking ages in different states created incentives for young people to combine their desire to drink with their ability to drive.

Some point pressure turns into coercion

o         All South Dakota would lose if she adheres to her chosen course as to a suitable minimum drinking age is 5% of the funds otherwise obtainable under specified highway grant programs, the argument as to coercion is shown to be more rhetoric than fact.

o         Congress offered a relatively mild encouragement to the States to enact higher minimum drinking ages than they would otherwise choose.

o         The enactment of such laws remains the prerogative of the States.

[Justice OConnor] - DISSENT

Minimum Drinking Age is not related to interstate high construction

o         The condition placed on the funds it not appropriate for the purpose.

o         The regulation is placed in other areas of the States social and economic life.

o         The relation between the regulation and highway funds is attenuated or tangential relationship to highway use or safety.

Otherwise Congress could regulate everything

o         If the rule were otherwise, the Congress could effectively regulate almost any area of a State's social, political, or economic life on the theory that use of the interstate transportation system is somehow enhanced.

Rules

Spending Clause Conditions.

1.     The tax must be in pursuit of the general welfare.

2.     It must be unambiguous. There can't be a failed understanding of what is expected of the States.

3.     It must be related to the Federal interest in particular national projects of programs.

4.     It must not violate any other Constitutional provisions.

Rule

o         Congress may induce states to prevent underage drinking by withholding federal highway funds from states that do not prohibit drivers under age 21 from drinking.

o         So as long as the only penalty is loss of funds that are related to the congressional program, there should not be a constitutional problem.

Class notes

Supplement

Other constitutional provisions as limits:

o         A federal spending program may still be found invalid because it runs afoul of other, specific, federal constitutional provisions protecting individuals. For instance, Congress could not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, even as part of an otherwise-valid spending program in furtherance of the "general welfare."

o    a. Achievement of otherwise disallowed objectives:

o    Suppose that Congress could not achieve objective X by direct regulation, since that would lie beyond its enumerated powers. May Congress use its conditional spending power to achieve that result indirectly, say by depriving the states of money if they do not achieve the regulatory result? The answer is, 'yes," so long as the action by the state does not violate the constitutional rights of any individual.

o    Example:

o    Congress, in order to prevent drivers under the age of 21 from drinking, withholds federal highway funds from states that permit individuals younger than 21 to purchase or possess in public any alcoholic beverage. South Dakota attacks the statute on the grounds that this condition interferes with its own exclusive powers under both the Tenth and Twenty-First Amendments.

o    Held, the statute is valid.

o    Even if direct congressional setting of the drinking age for the entire country would be unconstitutional, Congress' indirect use of its conditional spending power to achieve the same results is permissible.

o    Only if, by the use of that conditional spending power, Congress induced the states to pass laws that would themselves violate the constitutional rights of individuals would that congressional action be unconstitutional.