Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Dole v. South Dakota

Supreme Court of the United States · 1987 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawSpending ClauseTwenty-first AmendmentFederalismSpending Clauseconditional spendinggeneral welfareunambiguous conditions

Facts

South Dakota allowed persons 19 years or older to purchase beer containing up to 3.2% alcohol. Congress enacted 23 U.S.C. § 158, directing the Secretary of Transportation to withhold a percentage of federal highway funds from States in which the purchase or public possession of alcoholic beverages by persons under 21 was lawful. South Dakota challenged the statute as an unconstitutional use of the spending power and as violating the Twenty-first Amendment. Congress enacted the condition to encourage uniform drinking ages because differing state drinking ages created incentives for young people to cross borders, drink, and drive.

Issue

May Congress, under its spending power, condition a small percentage of federal highway funds on a State's adoption of a minimum drinking age of 21? Does the Twenty-first Amendment bar Congress from using conditional spending to encourage States to raise their drinking ages?

Rule

Congress may attach conditions to the receipt of federal funds if the exercise of the spending power is in pursuit of the general welfare, the condition is stated unambiguously, the condition is related to the federal interest in the particular national project or program, and the condition does not induce the States to engage in conduct that would itself be unconstitutional. In addition, a financial inducement may be invalid if it is so coercive that pressure turns into compulsion, but relatively mild encouragement does not amount to coercion.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Congress creates a federal bridge-safety grant program for the States. The statute provides that a State may receive the funds only if it adopts a statewide rule requiring annual brake inspections for all commercial buses, based on congressional findings that unsafe buses frequently travel interstate routes and endanger the public.

A State challenges the condition, arguing that vehicle inspection policy is traditionally local and therefore not within Congress's spending power. How should a court rule?

Explanation. The majority states that Congress may spend for the general welfare even to achieve objectives not within its enumerated regulatory powers, and courts should defer substantially to Congress on whether an expenditure serves the general welfare. A bridge-safety grant tied to bus safety and interstate travel fits that framework. The challenge fails absent some other spending-clause defect such as ambiguity, lack of relatedness, unconstitutional inducement, or coercion. (Derived from Dole v. South Dakota (n.d.).)