Opinion ID: 528529
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Coercion Test in the Abstract

Text: 6 Article I specifically grants the Spending and Taxing Powers to Congress. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States. Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 1. Pursuant to this authority, Congress may condition the receipt of funds, by states or others, on compliance with federal directives. The Supreme Court has clearly, and repeatedly, declared that Congress may further broad policy objectives by conditioning receipt of federal moneys upon compliance by the recipient with federal statutory and administrative directives. South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203, 107 S.Ct. 2793, 2796, 97 L.Ed.2d 171 (1987) (quoting Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448 U.S. 448, 474, 100 S.Ct. 2758, 2772, 65 L.Ed.2d 902 (1980) (opinion of Burger, C.J.)). Moreover, Congress frequently, and with an almost unblemished record of success, 2 has under its spending authority promulgated legislation in pursuit of the general welfare that reaches beyond its other enumerated Constitutional powers. See South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203, 107 S.Ct. 2793, 2796, 97 L.Ed.2d 171 (1987) (collecting cases). 7 There are, however, limits upon the scope of the Spending Power. The Supreme Court has articulated at least four such restrictions. First, the exercise of the spending power must be in pursuit of the general welfare. See Oklahoma v. Civil Service Comm'n, 330 U.S. 127, 67 S.Ct. 544, 91 L.Ed. 794 (1947); Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619, 640, 57 S.Ct. 904, 908, 81 L.Ed. 1307 (1937). Second, the conditions on receipt of federal funds must be reasonably related to the articulated goal. South Dakota v. Dole, 107 S.Ct. at 2796. Third, Congress' intent to condition funds on a particular action must be authoritative and unambiguous, enabl[ing] the States to exercise their choice knowingly, cognizant of the consequences of their participation. Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 451 U.S. 1, 17, 101 S.Ct. 1531, 1540, 67 L.Ed.2d 694 (1981). Fourth, the federal legislation may be invalid if an independent constitutional provision bars Congressional actions. The independent constitutional bar rule stands for the unexceptionable proposition that the power may not be used to induce the States to engage in activities that would themselves be unconstitutional. South Dakota v. Dole, 107 S.Ct. at 2798. 8 Nevada does not seriously rely on any of these restrictions. 3 Instead, it bases its claim on the indistinct coercion limitation first articulated in Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548, 590, 57 S.Ct. 883, 893, 81 L.Ed. 1279 (1937) and most recently mentioned in South Dakota v. Dole, 107 S.Ct. at 2798. Our decisions have recognized that in some circumstances the financial inducement offered by Congress might be so coercive as to pass the point at which 'pressure turns into compulsion.'  Id. (quoting Steward Machine, 301 U.S. at 590, 57 S.Ct. at 892). But cf. New Hampshire Department of Employment Security v. Marshall, 616 F.2d 240, 246 (1st Cir.1980) (the carrot has [not] become a club because rewards for conforming have increased). According to the coercion theory, the federal government may not, at least in certain circumstances, condition the receipt of funds in such a way as to leave the state with no practical alternative but to comply with federal restrictions. 9 Appellant argues that the threatened loss of 95% of its highway funds deprives it of any real choice; practically, it is forced, it says, to adhere to the national speed limit. 4 Ultimately, Nevada argues, the federal government's legislation would deprive the state of its sovereignty and violate principles of federalism. 10 The coercion theory has been much discussed but infrequently applied in federal case law, and never in favor of the challenging party. See Oklahoma v. Schweiker, 655 F.2d 401, 406 (D.C.Cir.1981) (although there may be some limit to the terms Congress may impose, we have been unable to uncover any instance in which a court has invalidated a funding condition). Certainly, one reason for the federal courts' lack of enthusiasm for the theory is its elusiveness. Nevada, while baldly stating that withholding 95% of highway funds constitutes coercion, has not given us any principled definition of the word. We can hardly fault appellant, however, because our own inquiry has left us with only a series of unanswered questions. Does the relevant inquiry turn on how high a percentage of the total programmatic funds is lost when federal aid is cut-off? Or does it turn, as Nevada claims in this case, on what percentage of the federal share is withheld? Or on what percentage of the state's total income would be required to replace those funds? Or on the extent to which alternative private, state, or federal sources of highway funding are available? There are other interesting and more fundamental questions. For example, should the fact that Nevada, unlike most states, fails to impose a state income tax on its residents play a part in our analysis? Or, to put the question more basically, can a sovereign state which is always free to increase its tax revenues ever be coerced by the withholding of federal funds--or is the state merely presented with hard political choices? 5 The difficulty if not the impropriety of making judicial judgments regarding a state's financial capabilities renders the coercion theory highly suspect as a method for resolving disputes between federal and state governments. 6 11 Moreover, we would seriously question the vitality of the coercion test in light of the Supreme Court's holding in Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U.S. 528, 105 S.Ct. 1005, 83 L.Ed.2d 1016 (1985). See infra Sec. III. The purpose of the coercion test is to protect state sovereignty from federal incursions. If this sovereignty is adequately protected by the national political process, we do not see any reason for asking the judiciary to settle questions of policy and politics that range beyond its normal expertise. See Oklahoma v. Schweiker, 655 F.2d at 414. 12 Fortunately, under the facts of this case, we need not decide whether the coercion theory survives both its own doctrinal failings and recent changes in constitutional theory adopted by the Court. We hold, instead, that (1) if Congress has the authority under an enumerated power (other than the Spending Power) to compel the States through direct regulation to change its practices, then it may also achieve that result through the more gentle commands of the Spending Power, and (2) in this case, Congress could have relied on its authority under the Commerce Clause to establish a national speed limit. 13