1. Statute must be providing for general welfare – SC defers to Congress here - a policy judgment Statute always valid under this limit if Congress itself – enacted it, obviously Cong. thought statute provided for welfare” “gen. 2. Conditions on states’ receipt of fed. funds must be so states can choose whether to take fed. funds, after unambiguous, fully considering consequences of not following conditions 3. Fed. conditions on grant to states only OK if its Germaneness – relevant to purposes for which Cong. approved the grant Even remote connection between condition & the purpose of the spending statute OK easy to satisfy. – App- Here, condition for fed. highway funds-- raising drinking age to 21--is related to 1 of the “directly main purposes for which highway funds are expended- safe interstate travel;” Condition of states raising drinking ages to 21 uniformity across states in drinking age discourages teens from bordering states driving to SD to buy beer discourages teenage drinking & driving 4. may independently bar conditional grant Other Con. provisions of fed. funds (Ex. Cong. can’t give states grants on condition that they violate 1st Amd. by implementing censorship) 5. Fed. condition for grant to states can’t amt. to “compulsion” App: Condition here IS NOT coercive b/c Cong. has only made it so a state that has a below-21 drinking age a “lose relatively small % of certain fed. high funds”; so SD would still have other ways to obtain fed. highway grants how to disting. between conditions that are Unclear coercive and that are merely strong inducement to states. But SC has never had to draw this line b/c it has never struck down statutes exercising Congress. spending power. O’Connor Dissent Dole – Concl: Statute invalid exercise of Cong.’s spending power Cong.’s spending power should be limited by more than Cong’s own notion of gen. welfare so that fed. govt. doesn’t invade states’ jurisdiction / have no spending limits Criticizes maj.’s concl. that state min. drinking age condition is sufficiently related to grants for interstate highway construction & highway safety Upheld statute here over- and under-conclusive” “both Over –inclusive:
1. Statute must be providing for general welfare – SC defers to Congress here - a policy judgment Statute always valid under this limit – if Congress itself enacted it, obviously Cong. thought statute provided for “gen. welfare” 2. Conditions on states’ receipt of fed. funds must be unambiguous, so states can choose whether to take fed. funds, after fully considering consequences of not following conditions 3. Germaneness – Fed. conditions on grant to states only OK if its relevant to purposes for which Cong. approved the grant Even remote connection between condition & the purpose of the spending statute OK – easy to satisfy. App- Here, condition for fed. highway funds-- raising drinking age to 21--is “directly related to 1 of the main purposes for which highway funds are expended- safe interstate travel;” Condition of states raising drinking ages to 21 uniformity across states in drinking age discourages teens from bordering states driving to SD to buy beer discourages teenage drinking & driving 4. Other Con. provisions may independently bar conditional grant of fed. funds (Ex. Cong. can’t give states grants on condition that they violate 1st Amd. by implementing censorship) 5. Fed. condition for grant to states can’t amt. to “compulsion” App: Condition here IS NOT coercive b/c Cong. has only made it so a state that has a below-21 drinking age “lose a relatively small % of certain fed. high funds”; so SD would still have other ways to obtain fed. highway grants Unclear how to disting. between conditions that are coercive and that are merely strong inducement to states. But SC has never had to draw this line b/c it has never struck down statutes exercising Congress. spending power. O’Connor Dole Dissent – Concl: Statute invalid exercise of Cong.’s spending power Cong.’s spending power should be limited by more than Cong’s own notion of gen. welfare so that fed. govt. doesn’t invade states’ jurisdiction / have no spending limits Criticizes maj.’s concl. that state min. drinking age condition is sufficiently related to grants for interstate highway construction & highway safety Upheld statute here “both over- and under-conclusive” Over –inclusive:
Constitutional%20Law%20I-%20Smith-%20Spring%202012.docx