Reno v. Condon

528 U.S. 141, 120 S. Ct. 666 (2000)

 

RULE:

The Driver's Privacy Protection Act of 1994, 18 U.S.C.S. §§ 2721-2725 (1994 & Supp. III), is a proper exercise of Congress' authority to regulate interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause, U.S. Const., art. I, § 8, cl. 3.

FACTS:

The state and its attorney general sued the United States, alleging that the Driver's Privacy Protection Act of 1994 (DPPA) violated U.S. Const. amends. X and XI. The district court granted summary judgment for the State and permanently enjoined the DPPA's enforcement against respondents. On appeal, the appellate court affirmed. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States.

ISSUE:

Does the DPPA violate the Tenth Amendment?

ANSWER:

No

CONCLUSION:

The court held the DPPA was a proper exercise of Congress' authority to regulate interstate commerce because drivers' information was an article of commerce and its sale or release into the interstate stream of business was sufficient to support congressional regulation. The court rejected respondents' argument that the DPPA violated the principles of federalism contained in U.S. Const. amend. X since it did not require the South Carolina Legislature to enact any laws or regulations, and it did not require state officials to assist in the enforcement of federal statutes regulating private individuals.

Click here to view the full text case and earn your Daily Research Points.