Ever wonder why you can’t grab a legal beer at 19 anymore, no matter what state you’re in? It’s not actually because of a national law that says "thou shalt not drink until 21." It’s actually because of a 1987 Supreme Court case called South Dakota v. Dole. Honestly, it’s one of the most important court battles you’ve probably never heard of, and it basically changed how power works in America.
The story is kinda wild. It involves a "blood border," a very determined Secretary of Transportation named Elizabeth Dole, and a tiny state—South Dakota—that really didn’t want to be told what to do.
What was South Dakota v. Dole actually about?
Back in the early 80s, the drinking age was a total mess. Every state had its own rules. You could be 18 in one state, cross a bridge, and suddenly be underage. This created what people called "blood borders." Basically, teenagers would drive across state lines to drink where it was legal and then drive home drunk. It was a nightmare for safety.
Congress wanted to fix it, but they had a problem. The 21st Amendment—the one that ended Prohibition—sorta gives states the power to regulate alcohol. So, the federal government couldn't just pass a law saying "everyone must be 21." Instead, they got sneaky.
In 1984, they passed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act. It told the Secretary of Transportation to withhold 5% of federal highway funds from any state that didn't raise its drinking age to 21.
✨ Don't miss: Melissa Calhoun Satellite High Teacher Dismissal: What Really Happened
South Dakota, which allowed 19-year-olds to buy 3.2% beer, was like, "Wait a minute. You can't do that." They sued Elizabeth Dole. They argued that Congress was using its wallet to bully states into giving up their constitutional rights.
The Rehnquist Test: How the Court Decided
When the case hit the Supreme Court, Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote the majority opinion. He basically said that Congress has the "power of the purse." If the feds want to give states money, they can put strings on that money.
But they can’t just do whatever they want. The Court laid out a specific checklist to see if these "strings" are legal.
To be constitutional, a condition on federal money has to meet these four (technically five) rules:
🔗 Read more: Wisconsin Judicial Elections 2025: Why This Race Broke Every Record
- The General Welfare: The spending has to actually benefit the public. (This is a low bar; the Court usually just takes Congress's word for it).
- Unambiguous Conditions: If the feds are going to take your money away, they have to be super clear about the rules from the start. No "gotchas" allowed.
- Relatedness: The condition has to actually have something to do with the program. In this case, the Court said drinking ages were related to highway safety.
- No Independent Constitutional Bar: You can't use money to make a state do something that is actually unconstitutional, like making them discriminate against people.
- The "Anti-Coercion" Rule: This is the big one. The pressure can't turn into "compulsion." It has to be a choice, not a gun to the head.
Rehnquist argued that losing 5% of highway funds was just "relatively mild encouragement." It wasn't "coercive" because South Dakota could just say no and lose a bit of cash.
They didn't, obviously. No state wants to lose millions in road money.
Why Sandra Day O’Connor Hated the Ruling
Not everyone was on board. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote a really sharp dissent. She thought the "relatedness" part was a joke.
She argued that a drinking age has nothing to do with how you build a highway. To her, this was just a back-door way for the federal government to regulate something it didn't have the power to regulate directly. She worried that if this was allowed, the federal government could eventually control every single part of state life just by threatening to pull funding.
💡 You might also like: Casey Ramirez: The Small Town Benefactor Who Smuggled 400 Pounds of Cocaine
She saw it as a slippery slope. Honestly? Looking at how much the federal government controls today through "grants," she might have been onto something.
Does This Still Matter in 2026?
It matters a ton. South Dakota v. Dole is the reason we have the same drinking age everywhere. But it's also the reason why the federal government can influence things like education standards (think Common Core) or healthcare.
However, the "coercion" rule finally got some teeth a few years back. In the NFIB v. Sebelius case (the big Obamacare ruling), the Supreme Court actually used the logic from Dole to strike something down. They said the feds couldn't threaten to take away all of a state's Medicaid funding if they didn't expand the program. That, the Court said, was a "gun to the head," not just encouragement.
What You Should Take Away From This
This case is the ultimate example of "he who pays the piper calls the tune."
The federal government uses this "spending power" for almost everything now. It’s why states follow certain environmental rules or why schools have specific programs. It’s a way to get around the 10th Amendment without actually breaking it.
If you’re a law student or just someone interested in how our country works, keep an eye on how these "strings" are used in new legislation. The line between "encouragement" and "coercion" is still pretty blurry, and that’s where the next big legal battles will happen.
What to do with this information:
- Look at your local news: Next time you hear about a state "losing federal funding" over a policy dispute, you'll know exactly which Supreme Court case they are fighting about.
- Read the dissent: If you want a real education in federalism, look up O’Connor’s dissent in 483 U.S. 203. It’s a masterclass in arguing for state sovereignty.
- Watch the 10%: Notice how modern federal mandates often hover around that 5-10% mark? That’s specifically to avoid the "coercion" trap the Court warned about.