Under the state law, anyone nineteen and older could buy beer that had an alcohol content of 3.2% or lower. 23 U.S.C. section 158 was drafted by Congress. This, directed the Secretary of Transportation, Dole, to hold up to 5% of federal funds that were chosen for the highways if the states allowed for individuals 21 and under to buy alcohol. South Dakota responded by seeing Dole claiming that section 158 had violated the 21st Amendment as well as constitutional limits when it comes to (Congress) spending power.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
The United States district court held the actions of Congress as constitutional and the court of appeals affirmed the opinion of the district courts. The state appealed the case to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
ISSUE: May Congress withhold the funds from states that do not preserve a 21 year old …show more content…
The Court held that Congress was within constitutional bounds when encouraging consistency in the states’ drinking age. The Court ruled that legislation was aimed at the general welfare and the means they used were reasonable. It was also held by the Court that the 21st Amendment’s restrictions on spending power did not prohibit congressional attempts at achieving federal objectives. The loss (five percent) of the highway funds was not coercive.
DISSENTING OPINIONS:
Justices Sandra Day O’Connor and William Brennan dissent on the ground of the twenty-first amendment. This amendment relegates regulation of state sales on alcohol. Justice O’Connor dissented on the Code’s section 158 because she felt is was not on Congress’s spending power which is related to federal funds expenditure and a congressional effort to place regulations on the sale of alcohol. Justice Brennan dissented that the regulating the minimum drinking age was reserved power by the states according to the 21st Amendment.
CONCURRING OPINIONS:
There were no concurring opinions.
CONCLUSION or
PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
The United States district court held the actions of Congress as constitutional and the court of appeals affirmed the opinion of the district courts. The state appealed the case to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
ISSUE: May Congress withhold the funds from states that do not preserve a 21 year old …show more content…
The Court held that Congress was within constitutional bounds when encouraging consistency in the states’ drinking age. The Court ruled that legislation was aimed at the general welfare and the means they used were reasonable. It was also held by the Court that the 21st Amendment’s restrictions on spending power did not prohibit congressional attempts at achieving federal objectives. The loss (five percent) of the highway funds was not coercive.
DISSENTING OPINIONS:
Justices Sandra Day O’Connor and William Brennan dissent on the ground of the twenty-first amendment. This amendment relegates regulation of state sales on alcohol. Justice O’Connor dissented on the Code’s section 158 because she felt is was not on Congress’s spending power which is related to federal funds expenditure and a congressional effort to place regulations on the sale of alcohol. Justice Brennan dissented that the regulating the minimum drinking age was reserved power by the states according to the 21st Amendment.
CONCURRING OPINIONS:
There were no concurring opinions.
CONCLUSION or