South Dakota v. Dole | BRI’s Homework Help Series

0:00 The Constitution divides governing authority between the national government and the States. The Constitution also empowers Congress to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. So while Congress may attach conditions on the receipt of federal funds, local and state governments may resist that control.

0:23 Throughout our nation’s history, this division has been an oftentimes tense balancing act, and in 1987, this balance was called into question, this time concerning the distribution of federal grants or money being given to the states. In 1984, Congress passed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, which required states to raise their drinking age to 21 in order to receive

0:45 their full allotment of federal highway funds. So the question was raised was it constitutional for Congress to require states to adopt a specific drinking age in order to receive federal highway funding, or was this an overreach of federal authority? This is the story of South Dakota v. Dole.

1:25 Interstate highways are the mains of the American economy, with widespread benefits related to commuters for work, tourists on vacation, goods being shipped around the country, and general travel. They’re an integral part of our society. During the post war era, the federal government contributed significant amounts of money to the States for highways, most notably with. The Interstate Highway Act of in 1971,

1:49 the 26th Amendment lowered the voting age to 18. It was also during this time that hordes of under 21 citizens served in the Vietnam War. So since young people were carrying out these significant national duties, many states use that as justification to lower their drinking ages. This of course all changed in 1984 when Congress raised the drinking age to 21

2:12 with the National Minimum Drinking Age Act. This soon led to Congress threatening to withdraw a significant portion of federal highway funds if they didn’t comply. We’re talking millions of dollars here. At the time, South Dakota law allowed people who were 19 years or older to purchase beer containing up to 3.2% alcohol. So when Congress threatened to revoke their valuable highway funds,

2:34 the state filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment, arguing that the Congressional act was an invalid exercise of Congress’s spending power. South Dakota sought keep their drinking age where it was, while retaining all of its highway funds. The principle of federalism was also being considered. South Dakota argued that the National Minimum Drinking Age Act violated the 21st Amendment,

2:54 which granted states the power to regulate the sale of alcohol. The case originated in federal court with South Dakota, represented by then Attorney General Roger Tellinghuisen and Secretary of Transportation Elizabeth Dole, represented by Deputy Solicitor General Lewis Cohen. The district court rejected South Dakota’s claim that the congressional law was

3:16 an unconstitutional restriction on the state. The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this ruling. Eventually, the case made its way to the Supreme Court. How would our highest court rule where states being unfairly coerced to change their laws by the federal government in order to receive crucial funds. By a seven to two vote,

3:36 the Supreme Court decided that Congress had indeed acted constitutionally. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Rehnquist observed that several general restrictions limit Congress’s spending power. These included that the exercise of the spending power must not be coercive and must not impose an unconstitutional condition on states. South Dakota had claimed in their suit

3:56 that Congress violated the 21st Amendment, which empowered the states to set the drinking age and also coerced South Dakota by withholding highway funds. In rejecting this argument, Chief Justice Rehnquist concluded that were South Dakota to succumb to the blandishments offered by Congress and raise its drinking age to 21, the state’s action in doing so would not

4:17 violate the constitutional rights of anyone. Moreover, the relatively small financial inducement offered by Congress is not so coercive as to past the point at which pressure turns into compulsion. He concluded by stating, Even if Congress might lack the power to impose a national minimum drinking age directly, we conclude that encouragement

4:39 to state action found in the federal law is a valid use of spending power. The Court also affirmed that the 10th Amendment did not prevent congressional regulation of state’s activities through federal funds. In dissent, Justice O’Connor argued that the federal law fell outside of Congress’s power on the grounds that establishing a minimum drinking age was not sufficiently related to interstate

5:02 highway construction enough for a state to lose funds. She wrote, When Congress appropriates money to build a highway, it is entitled to insist that the highway be a safe one, but it is not entitled to insist that the condition of the use of highway funds that the state imposed or change regulations in other areas of the state’s social and economic life because of an attenuated or tangential relationship to highway use or safety.

5:26 Justice Brennan also dissented, writing, since states possess its constitutional power, congress cannot condition a federal grant in a manner that abridges this right. The Amendment itself strikes the proper balance between federal and state authorities. Now that the national drinking age was established at 21, all 50 states would comply by 1988 in order to keep their highway funds.

5:48 And even though it’s technically a matter of state law, the minimum drinking age remains at 21. The contested principle of federalism continues to. Be debated and litigated in the courts. As the balancing act between the states and federal government continues, it’s only a matter of time before another Supreme Court case question this balance of powers. What will that case revolve around?

6:09 This was the case of South Dakota versus Dole. Thank you so much for watching. Don’t forget to like and subscribe and comment down below.