Spending Power, South Dakota v. Dole

[A18]

South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987)

Congress, determining that states with lower minimum drinking ages created incentives for young people to drink and drive, decided to withhold a percentage of otherwise available federal highway funding from states that allowed persons under twenty-one to purchase alcohol. South Dakota brought suit against the United States secretary of transportation.

Held: Even if Congress, in view of the Twenty-first Amendment, might lack the power to impose directly a national minimum drinking age (a question not decided here), 158's indirect encouragement of state action to obtain uniformity in the States' drinking ages is a valid use of the spending power.

[Emsworth]

The decision was unsound.

The legal drinking age is completely within the sphere of the state governments. The federal government has no authority to regulate drinking directly; it may not regulate drinking indirectly either.

Of course, the federal government may impose conditions relating to federal funding. However, such conditions should be obviously and directly related to the purpose of the grant. The general welfare clause does not grant the federal government authority to bribe and blackmail the states.

No direct connection exists between the legal drinking age and transportation funding.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Of course it was a sound decision.

[A18]

The decision was unsound.

Agreed. The proper test is that all conditions on federal grants must be reasonably related to their expenditure.