| South Dakota v. Dole | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued April 28, 1987 Decided June 23, 1987 | |
| Full case name | South Dakota v. Elizabeth H. Dole, Secretary of Transportation |
| Citations | 483 U.S. 203 (more) 107 S.Ct. 2793; 97 L. Ed. 2d 171; 1987 U.S. LEXIS 2871 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | 791 F.2d 628 (8th Cir. 1986); cert. granted, 479 U.S. 982 (1986). |
| Holding | |
| Congress may attach reasonable conditions to funds disbursed to the states without running afoul of the Tenth Amendment, including requiring them to have a minimum legal drinking age of 21 for federal highway funding. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Rehnquist, joined by White, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell, Stevens, Scalia |
| Dissent | Brennan |
| Dissent | O'Connor |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. Art. 1, Sect. 8 U.S. Const. amends. X, XXI | |
South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court considered the limitations that the Constitution places on the authority of the United States Congress to influence state lawmaking. The Court upheld the constitutionality of a federal statute that withheld federal funds from states whose legal drinking age did not conform to federal policy.[1] The dissent argued that the minimum drinking age condition for states to receive federal highway funds was not sufficiently related to Congress' interests in expending the funds and consequently exceeded Article 1, Section 8, spending power.[2]