World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

South Dakota v. Dole

 

South Dakota v. Dole

South Dakota v. Dole
Argued April 28, 1987
Decided June 23, 1987
Full case name South Dakota v. Dole, Secretary of Transportation
Citations 483 U.S. 203 (more)
Holding
Congress may attach reasonable conditions to funds disbursed to the states without running afoul of the Tenth Amendment.
Court membership
Case opinions
Majority Rehnquist, joined by White, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell, Stevens, Scalia
Dissent Brennan
Dissent O'Connor
Laws applied
U.S. Const. Art. 1, Sect. 8, U.S. Const. amend. XXI

South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court considered the limitations the Constitution places on the authority of the United States Congress when it uses its authority to influence the individual states in areas of authority normally reserved to the states. It upheld the constitutionality of a federal statute that withheld federal funds from states whose legal drinking age did not conform to federal policy.

Background

In 1984, the United States Congress passed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, which withheld 5% [1] of federal highway funding from states that did not maintain a minimum legal drinking age of 21. South Dakota, which allowed 19-year-olds to purchase beer containing up to 3.2% alcohol, challenged the law, naming Secretary of Transportation Elizabeth Dole as the defendant.

Decision of the Court

The Supreme Court held, 7–2, that the statute represented a valid use of Congressional authority under the spending clause, and that the statute did not infringe upon the rights of the states. The Court established a five point rule for considering the constitutionality of expenditure cuts of this type, noting that:

  1. The spending must promote "the general welfare";
  2. The condition must be unambiguous;
  3. The condition should relate "to the federal interest in particular national projects or programs";
  4. The condition imposed on the States must not in itself be unconstitutional; and
  5. The condition must not be coercive.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice William Rehnquist noted that the National Minimum Drinking Age Act clearly met the first three restrictions, leaving only the latter two restrictions worthy of consideration. Rehnquist wrote that the Congress did not violate the Tenth Amendment because it merely exercised its right to control its spending. Rehnquist wrote that the Congress did not coerce the states because it only cut a small percentage of federal funding, thus applying pressure, but not irresistible pressure. 5

Dissent

Justices O'Connor and Brennan each filed dissents. O'Connor agreed that Congress may attach conditions on the receipt of federal funds, and that the Twenty-First Amendment gives states authority over laws relating to the consumption of alcohol. But O'Connor wrote that the attachment of condition on the states must be "reasonably related to the expenditure of funds." O'Connor disagreed with the Court's finding that withholding federal highway funds was reasonably related to deterring drunken driving and drinking by minors and young adults. She argued that the condition was both over and under-inclusive: it prevented teenagers from drinking when they are not going to drive on federal and federally funded highways, and it did not attempt to remedy the overall problem of drunken driving on federal and federally funded highways. She held the relation between the condition and spending too attenuated: "establishment of a minimum drinking age of 21 is not sufficiently related to interstate highway construction to justify so conditioning funds appropriated for that purpose."

See also

Notes

  1. ^ Title 23 of the United States Code, Highways. (PDF file, see Section 158)

External links

  • Text of South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987) is available from:  Findlaw  Justia  UMKC Law School 
This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and USA.gov, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for USA.gov and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
 
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
 
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.
 



Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from World eBook Fair are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.