Skip to Main Content

Drinking Age and Federal Highways Teacher Supports

Teacher Supports for Drinking Age Case Study

This case study centers on the following question: Is the establishment of a minimum drinking age a power that belongs to the national government or the state governments? This teacher guide contains the following supports:

  • Overview of Primary Sources
    • National Minimum Drinking Age Act, 1984
    • South Dakota v. Dole (1987)
    • S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 2024 budget request
  • External links for additional support
  • Discussion Questions

Overview of Primary Sources

National Minimum Drinking Age Act, 1984

  • Summary: Any state that refuses to raise its drinking age to 21 would lose five percent of its funds for interstate highways. This law marked the first time that Congress set a condition on funding for interstate highways.
  • Connection to federalism: The Constitution does not mention setting a drinking age as an enumerated power of the national government, but by attaching the drinking-age condition, Congress sought to influence state decision-making through its spending power.

South Dakota v. Dole (1987)

  • Central question: In passing the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, did Congress overstep its spending powers? And did Congress violate the Twenty-First Amendment, which gave the states primary power to regulate alcohol?
  • Case background: In 1984, President Reagan signed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act. This Act withheld 5 percent of federal highway funds from states that did not adopt a 21-year-old minimum drinking age. South Dakota challenged the law.
  • Ruling: The Court ruled 7-2 that the National Minimum Drinking Age Act was in pursuit of “the general welfare” and therefore within the constitutional powers given to Congress. The Court also held that the Twenty-First Amendment’s limitations on spending power did not limit Congress from trying to achieve federal objectives indirectly. In her dissenting opinion, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor argued that the connection between highway safety and a minimum drinking age was weak and therefore did not fall under the category of providing for the general welfare. O’Connor’s dissent emphasized that the Twenty-First Amendment left the regulation of alcohol to the states. Justice William Brennan also dissented, agreeing with O’Connor that the principle of federalism supported leaving the matter to the states.
  • Connections to federalism: The conflict between state and federal power is at the heart of this case. The ruling strongly favored the national government. 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 2024 budget request

  • Summary: This information shows students the scale of federal funding available to states for transportation purposes.
  • Connection to federalism: Because of the National Minimum Drinking Age Act and the ruling in South Dakota v. Dole, Congress can use its spending power to encourage states to set their legal drinking age at 21. This source shows students that by not complying with this requirement, states are not eligible for billions in infrastructure aid.

External Links for Additional Support

Discussion Questions

  • Should the establishment of a minimum drinking age be a power of the national government or the state governments? Explain your reasoning.
  • Does setting a national drinking age fall within the powers given to Congress under the general welfare provision? Explain.
  • How did the decision in South Dakota v. Dole reflect the tension between federal and state authority? Do you agree with the Court’s reasoning? Why or why not?
  • In what ways did the federal government use its spending power to influence state policies in South Dakota v. Dole? What are the potential advantages and drawbacks of employing such a strategy?
  • Does withholding 5 percent of state funds for highways seem coercive to you? Why or why not?
  • How does the example of the minimum drinking age exemplify the broader concept of federalism in the United States? Can you think of other examples where federal and state powers have clashed or cooperated in a similar manner?
  • Do you believe there are certain issues where federal intervention is necessary for the greater good or general welfare? Why or why not?
  • Considering the complexity of South Dakota v. Dole, what lessons can be drawn about the challenges of balancing federal and state authority in a democratic system?
  • What civic virtues are needed to ensure a healthy balance between federal and state power? Explain.
  • How do individual actions affect the balance of power between federal and state governments?