Justices Support Move for Drinking Age of 21 : High Court Rules Congress May Curb Highway Funds to States That Refuse to Raise Minimum

The Supreme Court, supporting the move toward a national minimum drinking age, ruled Tuesday that Congress may reduce federal highway funds to states that refuse to raise their drinking age to 21.

The court, stepping into a contentious clash between states’ rights and congressional authority, concluded on a 7-2 vote that Congress has broad power to set standards for the spending of federal funds. If states do not wish to meet those standards, they can turn down the money, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said in rejecting an appeal from South Dakota.

Congress “has offered a relatively mild encouragement to the states” to raise their drinking age, Rehnquist said, and it “remains the prerogative of the states” whether they comply.

In addition, Congress had good reason to push for a minimum age standard because young persons driving across state lines to buy alcohol pose a “dangerous situation” that required a “national solution,” he said. “Differing drinking ages in the states created particular incentives for young persons to combine their desire to drink with their ability to drive.”

In 1984, Congress threatened states with a 5% loss of federal highway funds in fiscal 1987 and 10% in fiscal 1988 if they refused to raise their minimum age for alcohol consumption to 21. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration had projected that a nationwide minimum drinking age would reduce highway deaths by 13% and save 550 lives a year.

Only four states--South Dakota, Colorado, Ohio and Wyoming--have refused to raise their drinking ages, risking substantial loss in funding for highway construction. Ohio, for example, stands to lose $16.5 million in fiscal 1987 and $33.1 million in fiscal 1988.

“I don’t think many of them will hold out. They simply need the money,” said attorney Benna Solomon, who filed a brief for the National Conference of State Legislatures on behalf of South Dakota.

Attorneys for South Dakota put forth two arguments, one legal and one practical.

First, they contended that Congress had “usurped” the states’ legal authority under the 21st Amendment that gave states control over the sale of alcoholic beverages in ending Prohibition. Secondly, they said, raising the drinking age does not necessarily lead to safer highways.

“South Dakota believes more teen-agers will drink in automobiles because they will have no lawful gathering places,” the state contended. Several states said in briefs filed with the court that the number of alcohol-related highway deaths had increased soon after their legislatures increased the legal drinking age.

The justices dismissed the legal argument advanced by South Dakota. Although it was unclear whether Congress has the authority to force states to set a minimum age, Rehnquist said, federal legislators could set spending conditions that would “encourage uniformity in the states’ drinking ages.”

Justices William J. Brennan Jr. and Sandra Day O’Connor dissented in the belief that the 21st Amendment gives the states the sole authority to regulate alcohol. O’Connor also argued that Congress could require states to build safe highways with its highway funds but that it could not attach unrelated demands to the funding (South Dakota vs. Dole, 86-260).

In other actions, the court:

--Sidestepped ruling on an appeal of a California court decision that said police may not search through garbage in an apartment house trash bin. Police in West Hollywood found gambling receipts in a basement trash dumpster and later obtained a warrant to search an apartment above. A court ruled the search of the communal trash bin unconstitutional.

Other Evidence

Los Angeles County attorneys appealed that ruling, but on a 6-3 vote the justices dropped the case (California vs. Rooney, 85-1835) because prosecutors obtained other, similar evidence. Justices Byron R. White and Lewis F. Powell Jr., along with Rehnquist, said they believe that the search of the trash was legal.

--Struck down state taxes in Washington and Pennsylvania because they discriminated against out-of-state businesses. Washington has a unique taxing system that charges manufacturers there a higher rate for products sold outside the state and Pennsylvania charges a higher registration fee to out-of-state trucks.

Both laws violate the Constitution, the justices said, because they would restrict interstate commerce if adopted widely (Tyler Pipe Industries vs. Washington, 85-1963, and American Trucking Assn. vs. Scheiner, 86-357).