483 U.S. 203 (1987)
South Dakota permits persons 19 years of age or older to purchase beer containing up to 3.2% alcohol under its state statutes.1
In 1984 Congress enacted 23 U.S.C. § 158.2 This statute directs the Secretary of Transportation to withhold a percentage of federal highway funds otherwise allocable from any state in which the purchase or public possession of any alcoholic beverage by a person less than twenty-one years of age remains lawful.3
South Dakota filed suit in United States District Court against the Secretary of Transportation.4 The State sought a declaratory judgment that the federal statute violates constitutional limitations on the spending power and violates the Twenty-first Amendment.5
The District Court rejected the State's claims.6 The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision in 791 F. 2d 628 (1986).7
Whether 23 U.S.C. § 158 violates the constitutional limitations on Congress's exercise of the spending power?8
Congress may attach conditions to the receipt of federal funds pursuant to the spending power provided the conditions are in pursuit of the general welfare, stated unambiguously, reasonably related to the federal interest in the particular national project or program, and do not induce the states to engage in activities that would themselves be unconstitutional.9
No. South Dakota permits persons 19 years of age or older to purchase beer containing up to 3.2% alcohol under its state statutes, allowing younger adults to buy low-alcohol beer.10
In 1984 Congress enacted 23 U.S.C. § 158, which directs the Secretary of Transportation to withhold a percentage of federal highway funds from states where purchase or public possession of alcoholic beverages by persons under twenty-one is lawful.
South Dakota, maintaining its lower drinking age, filed suit in United States District Court against the Secretary of Transportation seeking a declaratory judgment that the federal statute violates constitutional limitations on the spending power and also violates the Twenty-first Amendment.
The District Court rejected the State's claims, and the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed that decision in 791 F. 2d 628 (1986).
The Court considered the scope of the spending power and the impact of the Twenty-first Amendment. The statute serves the general welfare by addressing the interstate problem of young persons drinking and driving.11 The conditions are clearly stated in the statute itself.12 The condition is directly related to the purpose of highway funds, which is safe interstate travel.13 There is no independent constitutional bar because the state action of raising the drinking age would not violate any constitutional rights of anyone.14 The financial inducement is not so coercive as to constitute compulsion under the precedents.15
Section 158 is a valid exercise of Congress's spending power and does not violate the constitutional limitations thereon.16
Related opinions on this issue
Justice O’Connor dissented on the ground that § 158 is not a condition on spending reasonably related to the expenditure of federal funds.17 She explained that the condition is over-inclusive because it stops teenagers from drinking even when they are not about to drive on interstate highways.18 The condition is also under-inclusive because eighty-four percent of all highway fatalities involving alcohol occur among those whose ages exceed 21.19
She concluded that the provision amounts to regulation of liquor sales that falls within the ambit of powers reserved to the states by the Twenty-first Amendment rather than a valid exercise of the spending power.20
Whether 23 U.S.C. § 158 violates the Twenty-first Amendment to the United States Constitution?21
The Twenty-first Amendment reserves to the states the power to regulate the sale and distribution of liquor.22 It does not prevent Congress from using the spending power to encourage states to adopt a uniform minimum drinking age so long as the condition does not induce unconstitutional state action.23
No. The Twenty-first Amendment does not constitute an independent constitutional bar to the conditional grant of federal funds.24 The condition does not induce the state to engage in unconstitutional activities. If South Dakota raises its drinking age to twenty-one the state's action would not violate the constitutional rights of anyone. The amendment does not prohibit Congress from acting indirectly through the spending power even if it could not regulate drinking ages directly.25
Section 158 does not violate the Twenty-first Amendment.26
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Brennan dissented, agreeing with Justice O’Connor that regulation of the minimum age of purchasers of liquor falls squarely within the ambit of those powers reserved to the States by the Twenty-first Amendment.27 He reasoned that since States possess this constitutional power, Congress cannot condition a federal grant in a manner that abridges this right.28 In his view, the Amendment itself strikes the proper balance between federal and state authority.29
He therefore dissented from the judgment upholding the statute.30
Justice O’Connor further argued that the regulation of the age of the purchasers of liquor falls squarely within the scope of powers reserved to the states by the Twenty-first Amendment.31 She explained that Congress lacks power under the Commerce Clause to displace state regulation of this kind.32 In her view, the spending condition cannot be justified by the spending power because it is not reasonably related to highway construction and instead constitutes regulation of liquor sales.33
She concluded that the statute is not authorized by the Constitution and respectfully dissented.34