South Dakota v. Dole

Question 1

Background pt 1

Answer 1

South Dakota allowed 19 year-olds to drink 3.2% beer
•3.2% alcohol by weight = 4.0% alcohol by volume
•Coors Light, Natty Light = 4.2% ABV
•Amstel Light = 4.0% ABV
•If you wanted stronger beer, wine, or liquor you needed to be 21+

Congress gives billions to states to build/repair highways
•Mothers Against Drunk Driving lobbied to reduce highway funding by 5% to states that allowed drinking under 21
•Puts pressure on states like SD to update their drinking laws

Question 2

Issue

Answer 2

Whether a federal law conditioning the receipt of highway funding to state drinking laws violates the Taxing and Spending Clause of Article I, Section 8.

Question 3

Holding

Answer 3

Held (7-2) Rehnquist writing, NO. The law passed a four-prong test outlining the extent to which Congress can incentivize states to change their laws

Question 4

4 prong rule for congress + taxing and spending clause

Answer 4

1.The exercise of the spending power must be in pursuit of “the general welfare.”
•United States v. Butler
•Involves deference to Congress’ judgment

2.Congress “must [condition funds] unambiguously
•“Enable the States to exercise their choice knowingly, cognizantof the consequences of their participation.

3.Funding restricted must be “related to the federal interest in particular national projects or programs”

4. Other constitutional provisions may provide an independent bar to the conditional grant of federal funds
   •NOT the 10thAmendment
   •21st Amendment (not stated clearly in excerpt)

• The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited
• Section 2, 21stAmendment

Question 5

Applying the rule –general welfare (ages)

Answer 5

•Congress determined differing drinking ages created a safety problem on the roads

• “The means it chose to address this dangerous situation were reasonably calculated to advance the general welfare.” Rehnquist
• O’Connor’s dissent does not disagree

Question 6

Applying the rule –non-ambiguity (law name)

Answer 6

The law was called the National Minimum Drinking Age Act
•“The conditions upon which States receive the funds, moreover, could not be more clearly stated by Congress.” Rehnquist

•O’Connor’s dissent does not disagree

Question 7

Applying the rule –national interest (condition imposed)

Answer 7

“Condition imposed by Congress is directly related to one of the main purposes for which highway funds are expended—safe interstate travel” Rehnquist

•Presidential commission found “young persons commut[e] to border States where the drinking age is lower”

Question 8

Applying the rule –national interest (O’ Connor’s dissent)

Answer 8

O’Connor’s dissent disagrees –the law “is far too over-and under-inclusive”
•Does both too much and too little to achieve safer interstate travel

Over-inclusive
•“Stops teenagers from drinking even when they are not about to drive on interstate highways”

Under-inclusive
•“Teenagers pose only a small part of the drunken driving problem in this Nation”

Question 9

Applying the rule –national interest (O’Connor dissent pt 2)

Answer 9

When Congress appropriates money to build a highway, it is entitled to insist that the highway be a safe one.”
•(My conjecture) speed limits, build guardrails, use asphalt not concrete

“But it is not entitled to insist…that the State impose or change regulations in other areas of the State’s social and economic life because of an attenuated or tangential relationship…”

Question 10

Applying the rule –independent bar (bullying)

Answer 10

Is South Dakota being bullied into giving up its 21stAmendment authority to regulate every aspect of booze?
•“Our decisions have recognized that in some circumstances the financial inducement offered by Congress might be so coercive as to pass the point at which ‘pressure turns into compulsion.’” •Rehnquist citing Steward Machine Co. v. Davis(1937)
•5% loss of funding isn’t too much pressure

Question 11

Applying the rule –independent bar (O’Conor Dissent)

Answer 11

O’Connor’s dissent disagrees here, too
•Her rule: “Congress has the power to spend for the general welfare, it has the power to legislate only for delegated purposes…. The appropriate inquiry, then, is whether the spending requirement or prohibition is a condition on a grant or whether it is regulation.”

Does that mean she thinks Butler was correctly decided?
•No! “The error inButlerwas not the Court’s conclusion that the Act was essentially regulatory, but rather its crabbed view of the extent of Congress’ regulatory power under the Commerce Clause.”