South Dakota v. Dole

Facts

South Dakota allowed people 19 years of age or older to buy beer containing up to 3.2% alcohol. In 1984 Congress enacted 23 U.S.C. §158. That law directs the Secretary of Transportation to withhold a percentage of the federal highway funds otherwise allocable to any State where a person under twenty-one may lawfully buy or publicly possess alcohol. The opinion says a State that kept a lower drinking age would lose 5% of the funds otherwise obtainable under specified highway grant programs. Congress found that different drinking ages among the States gave young people an incentive to combine drinking with driving, and that this interstate problem needed a national solution. A Presidential commission appointed to study alcohol-related accidents on the Nation's highways concluded that the lack of uniform drinking ages created an incentive to drink and drive, because young persons commute to border States where the drinking age is lower. South Dakota challenged the law. It argued that §158 went beyond the limits on Congress's spending power (the power to tax and spend for the general welfare) and that it violated the Twenty-first Amendment, which deals with state control over liquor.

Issues

1. Is §158, which withholds a percentage of federal highway funds from States that allow people under twenty-one to buy or publicly possess alcohol, a valid use of Congress's spending power?
2. Does the Twenty-first Amendment bar Congress from using conditional federal funds to push States toward a higher drinking age, even if Congress could not set a national minimum drinking age directly?

Holding

Even if Congress might lack power to set a national drinking age directly, §158 is a valid use of the spending power. The condition serves the general welfare, is clearly stated, and is directly related to safe interstate travel. The Twenty-first Amendment is no independent bar, and losing 5% of certain highway funds is relatively mild encouragement, not coercion.