Examining Federal & State Relationships:
South Dakota vs. Dole
Prepared By:
Kathy Wolff
Rapid City Area School District
Stevens High School
Rapid City, SD
Developed for
Legislative Education for Greater Inquiry and Study (LEGIS)
Chiesman Center for Democracy, Inc.
1641 Deadwood Ave.
Rapid City, SD 57702
www.chiesman.org
2009
The contents of the K – 12 LEGIS LESSONS were developed under a grant from the U.S. Department of
Education (Grant No. 84.304c – LEGIS: Legislative Education for Greater Inquiry and Study). However,
the contents do not necessarily represent the policy of the U.S. Department of Education, and you should
not assume endorsement by the Federal Government. (EDGAR: 34 CFR)
LEGIS: Legislative Education for Greater Inquiry and Study
HS.A.2; HS.B.2; HS.D.2
Lesson Title: Examining Federal and State Relationships: South Dakota v. Dole
Prepared By: Kathy Wolff
Grade Level: High School
Time Required: 2--50 minute classes
Lesson in Unit:
9-12 Lesson 2 of 14 in Unit: What is Government?
Lesson 2 of 10 in Unit: Governmental Leadership
Lesson 2 of 13 in Unit: Relationship with Legislators
I.
Essential Questions:
What role does the Supreme Court play in determining the relationship between
state and federal government?
II.
South Dakota Grade Level Content Standards
9 - 12.C.1.2. Students are able to determine the influence of major historical
documents and ideals on the formation of the United States government.
9 - 12.C.1.3. Students are able to identify the principles of the American
Constitution.
9 - 12.C.1.4. Students are able to explain the principles of American democracy.
III.
Assessment Strategies
Students will analyze the arguments pertaining to the Supreme Court case of
South Dakota v. Dole and write a one page paper determining their personal
view of the relationship between the federal government and South Dakota.
Views should include what powers each level of government should have and
if/how those powers should be limited. The student’s reflection should express
views that remain in the limits of the Constitution.
IV.
Learning Objectives
Students will determine how the Supreme Court’s power of judicial review
(established by Marbury v. Madison in 1803) decides a case if the Constitution
does not directly speak to an issue.
V.
Necessary Materials/Technology:
Computer and internet access
VI.
Background Information:
1. Students should have basic knowledge of federalism.
2. Students should have knowledge of the role of the Supreme Court and its
power to interpret the U.S. Constitution.
VII.
Detailed Lesson Description
1. Students will break into groups of two.
LEGIS: Legislative Education for Greater Inquiry and Study
Page 1
2. Each group will research South Dakota v. Dole on the internet, using valid
and reliable sources, including primary documents.
3. Each group of two students will prepare a written presentation.
4. Each student in the group of two will choose a side and prepare an argument
for their side of the case as if they were arguing the case before the Supreme
Court.
5. Each argument should include the actual rulings and the individual’s
interpretation of the decision.
6. Each group will make their presentation before the teacher or before
class.
VIII.
the
Bibliography/Resources
South Dakota v. Dole brief from www.4lawschool.com/conlaw/sdd.shtml
The contents of the K – 12 LEGIS LESSONS were developed under a grant from the
U.S. Department of Education (Grant No. 84.304c – LEGIS: Legislative Education for
Greater Inquiry and Study). However, the contents do not necessarily represent the
policy of the U.S. Department of Education, and you should not assume endorsement
by the Federal Government. (EDGAR: 34 CFR)
LEGIS: Legislative Education for Greater Inquiry and Study
Page 2
South Dakota v. Dole (1987)
Author: Bram
Relevant Facts: The following is a cause of action for declaratory judgment to
interpose the U.S. Government from withholding federal road improvement funds to
States which allow people under 21 to drink alcohol. SD has an age of 19 as the
drinking age. Under 23 USC, article 158, U.S. can withhold up to 5% of funds in such a
case. Lower federal courts rejected the claim by SD, which argued the incentive goes
beyond reasonable limits of Congressional spending powers.
Issue: Under constitutional law, may the federal government withhold a portion of
federally appointed monies for roads for roads by instituting a tax or incentive to those
States who raise their minimum drinking age to 21?
Holding: Yes, Congress is indirectly under its spending power encouraging
uniformity in the States' drinking ages, and this is only influence, not regulating.
Court's Rationale/Reasoning: Spending power is related to pursuit of the "general
welfare" of the United States. Spending power may be enforce by Congress if it desires
to condition the States' receipt of federal funds, but it must be done in an unambiguous
way, enabling the States to exercise their choice knowingly, aware of what could
happen to the State if it did not comply. Also, spending power is granted if they are
unrelated to "the federal interest in particular national projects or programs." Other
constitutional provisions may provide an independent bar to the conditional grant of
federal funds.
The first such situation is justified as Congress is using its power in a way that is
directly related to one of the main purposes for which highway funds are used, that
being highway safety. A Presidential commission even has the numbers to prove that
younger kids flock to those states where the drinking age is lower (SD though?). Thus,
they justify their actions under this argument.
The other point the Court hits on is the constitutional bar argument, in which SD
claims since the Constitution provides no regulation of drinking age, Congress has no
right to enforce it. However, the Court rebuts this argument by bringing up the fact
Congress is allowed to provide a constitutional bar, provided the enforcement is not
directly regulating anything, which in this case is a national drinking age. Here, there is
an indirect regulation through incentives and penalties, for which Congress is allowed to
do, in requiring a higher drinking age minimum. The Court has held in the past that
federal funds may be withheld to state government officials if they didn't cooperate with
federal plans, as the government has the power to alot its monies how it sees fit.
The language in the 21st Amendment limits Congress to situations where the States
would be committing unconstitutional acts. The threshold, as discussed in Steward
machine, is when "pressure turns into compulsion." A conditional grant for federal road
money is not compulsion to do anything illegal.
Rule: Congress may attach conditions on the receipt of federal funds, and has
repeatedly employed the power to "further broad policy objectives by conditioning
receipt of federal monies upon compliance by the recipient with federal directives." (rule
from Butler)
LEGIS: Legislative Education for Greater Inquiry and Study
Page 3
Important Dicta: Court won't decide whether the 21st Amendment would prohibit
an attempt by Congress to legislate directly a national minimum drinking age.
Dissenting: (Justice O'Connor) 158 is an attempt to regulate the sale of liquor,
which is outside of Congress's power to regulate commerce. She has a narrow holding
regarding the Act, which she says is a misapplication of article of the 21st Amendment.
Congressional spending power has a limit: it must regulate only congruent to what it
is funding; the withholding of road money in comparison to a national drinking age is not
congruous. The facts the majority lays out in determining that younger kids will be
deterred from drinking fails to take into account they are but a small portion of highway
fatalities each year, and that these younger people are not driving to begin with.
The condition on federal road money is to provide safe highways for interstate travel,
not to restrict the people who can travel on them (19-20 year-old drinkers). This is a
social imposition which does not fall within the boundaries of Congressional spending
power. A Congressional brief says the legislature has the power to spend on the
general welfare, but can only legislate for delegated purposes, which is to say Congress
can't tell people what to do with their state money beyond telling them what purpose the
money is earmarked. Thus highway safety is not related to how the funds Congress
has appropriated are expended. This is a regulation on who can drink liquor, which is
not justified.
If this were a Commerce Clause argument, it would still fall below accepted reason.
Congress does not have the power to regulate State citizens on who can purchase
liquor: this is a State power only. This is not an enumerated McCulloch power.
LEGIS: Legislative Education for Greater Inquiry and Study
Page 4