The drinking age that was central to the Dole case was 21 years old. Congress sought to establish this as the national minimum drinking age through legislative action.
Understanding the Context: South Dakota v. Dole
The case of South Dakota v. Dole, decided by the Supreme Court in 1987, revolved around a federal mandate related to the minimum drinking age. Congress had passed legislation requiring states to set their minimum drinking age at 21. The penalty for states that did not comply was a loss of a percentage of their federal highway funding.
Here's a breakdown of the key elements:
- The Federal Mandate: In 1984, Congress enacted the National Minimum Drinking Age Act. This Act essentially stipulated that states elevate their minimum drinking age to 21.
- The Consequence of Non-Compliance: To ensure compliance, the Act included a provision stating that any state failing to adopt the 21-year-old drinking age would forfeit 10% of its federal highway funds. This leverage over federal funding was a significant incentive for states to conform.
- South Dakota's Challenge: South Dakota, a state that had a minimum drinking age of 19 at the time, brought a constitutional challenge against the Act. They argued that Congress's action exceeded its powers under the Spending Clause and violated the Tenth and Twenty-first Amendments, which reserve powers to the states. The challenge was brought against Elizabeth Dole, who was the Secretary of Transportation at the time.
- The Supreme Court's Decision: The Supreme Court ultimately upheld the federal statute. The Court ruled that Congress's conditioning of highway funds on states adopting the 21-year-old drinking age was a permissible exercise of its spending power under the Constitution's General Welfare Clause. The Court determined that the condition was for the general welfare, clearly stated, related to the federal interest in safe interstate travel, and did not coerce states into compliance.
The Impact of the Ruling
The South Dakota v. Dole decision was a landmark ruling because it clarified the extent of Congress's power to influence state policy through the use of conditional funding. It affirmed that Congress can attach conditions to federal funds granted to states, even if those conditions relate to areas traditionally governed by the states, provided certain criteria are met.
Key Takeaways from the Case:
- It solidified the national minimum drinking age of 21 across the United States.
- It demonstrated Congress's ability to use its spending power to achieve national policy objectives.
- It reinforced the principle that conditions on federal funding must be clearly stated and related to the federal interest in specific national projects or programs.
For more detailed information on the case, you can refer to the full text of the decision at South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987).
