# South Dakota v. Dole **Status: stub — expand.** **Decided June 23, 1987 · 7–2 · Rehnquist, C.J.** The framework for conditional federal spending. Congress directed the Secretary of Transportation to withhold 5% of federal highway funds from states with a drinking age below 21. South Dakota argued the Twenty-first Amendment reserved alcohol regulation to the states. The Court upheld the condition: Congress may achieve indirectly through spending what it could not command directly. The four-part test — the condition must serve the **general welfare**, be stated **unambiguously**, be **related** to the federal interest in the program, and not be barred by an **independent constitutional provision** — plus a fifth limit noted in dictum: financial inducement may not be "so coercive as to pass the point at which pressure turns into compulsion." Five percent was "relatively mild encouragement." That dictum lay unused for twenty-five years until [[NFIB v. Sebelius]] applied it to the Medicaid expansion. O'Connor dissented, arguing the condition regulated drinking rather than highway safety and so failed relatedness. ## See also - [[Spending Clause]] · [[NFIB v. Sebelius]] · [[Federalism Powers Crosswalk]]