- [Narrator] In 1984 Congress passed a law
withholding a percentage of Federal Highway funds
from any state that didn't enact
a minimum drinking age of 21.
South Dakota's minimum drinking age was 19
and the state didn't want to raise it,
but South Dakota also didn't want to lose
its Federal Highway money.
So South Dakota sued Federal Transportation secretary
Elizabeth Dole to block the new law,
claiming that it violated the Constitution spending clause
and the 21st Amendment.
The Federal District court upheld the statute
and the Court of Appeals for the 8th circuit affirmed.
South Dakota petitioned the United States Supreme Court
for review and the court granted cert.
The court considered whether Congress
can use conditional Highway funding grants
to compel states to raise their
minimum drinking ages to 21,
even though Congress can't directly
enact a national minimum drinking age.
Chief Justice Rehnquist,
writing for a seven Justice majority,
held that under the Constitution's
taxing and spending clause,
Congress can use conditional funding
to promote State compliance with federal policy,
even if Congress couldn't directly legislate on the issue.
Rehnquist explained that the constitution
grants Congress the power to collect taxes
and spend money to provide for the general welfare.
There are four limitations on congress's spending power.
First, the spending must be for the general welfare,
because this is largely a political consideration,
courts should generally defer to congress's judgment
on this point.
Second, if spending is conditioned on state action,
those conditions must be very clear,
so that states can act accordingly.
Third, conditions should be related
to the Federal Government's interest in particular
Federal programs.
Fourth, the statutes conditions must not conflict
with any other constitutional provision.
This fourth limitation is known
as the independent constitutional bar.
Because the law in this case satisfied
the first three requirements,
Rehnquist then considered whether the 21st amendment
constituted an independent constitutional bar
to the spending condition.
South Dakota argued that the 21st Amendment,
which have repealed prohibition,
barred Congress from setting
a national minimum drinking age.
Thus, South Dakota claimed,
the 21st amendment was an independent
constitutional bar to congress's policy
to withhold highway funds
if states refused to pass a de facto
national minimum drinking age.
The court presumed that Congress
couldn't directly enact a national minimum drinking age,
but held that the 21st Amendment
was not an independent constitutional bar.
The court reasoned that the independent
constitutional bar doctrine
prevented Congress only from compelling the states
to act unconstitutionally, such as,
by discriminating on the basis of race,
or imposing cruel and unusual punishments.
In this case, there was nothing unconstitutional
about states enacting a uniform minimum drinking age of 21.
So the independent constitutional bar
limitation didn't apply.
Chief Justice Rehnquist noted that sometimes
the Federal Government's Financial inducements
can be so large as to become unconstitutionally
coercive to the states.
But despite the fact that every other state
agreed to institute the minimum drinking age,
Rehnquist described the legislation
as nothing more than a relatively mild inducement
for State action.
The court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
Justice O'Connor dissented.
She agreed that conditional federal spending
is subject to the four-part test
that the majority described,
but she disagreed with how the majority applied it.
To O'Connor, Congress's goal
of setting a national minimum drinking age
was not sufficiently related
to the Federal Government's interest in the construction
and operation of safe interstate highways.
O'Connor thought the law was over-inclusive,
because it prohibited younger folks from drinking alcohol
even if they weren't going to be driving
on interstate highways.
Also the law was under inclusive,
because statistics show that the vast majority
of drunk drivers were over the age of 21.
O'Connor noted that courts had upheld other examples
of conditional Federal funding
only if congress's conditions related directly
to how the money was spent
and not to unrelated social policies.
Finally, O'Connor believed that the 21st amendment
gave the states absolute control over liquor sales
within their borders
and that a national drinking age
was thus outside of Congress's commerce powers.
Justice Brennan also dissented,
agreeing with Justice O'Connor
that the 21st Amendment grants the states
exclusive power to set drinking ages.
In Brennan's view, Congress cannot compel
the states to surrender that right
by threatening to withhold Federal Highway funding.
South Dakota vs Dole demonstrates
that Congress may use its spending power
to indirectly implement National policies,
even in areas where Congress lacks the power
to legislate directly.