Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

South Dakota Vs. Dole

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 23, 1987

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

58 entries 8 linked 50 unlinked
Show
  1. Craig Vs. Boren US Supreme Court · Dec 20, 1976
  2. Fullilove Vs. Klutznick US Supreme Court · Jul 02, 1980
  3. ivanhoe Irrigation Dist. Vs. Mccracken US Supreme Court · Jun 23, 1958
  4. United States Vs. Butler US Supreme Court · Jan 06, 1936
  5. Buckley Vs. Valeo US Supreme Court · Jan 30, 1976
  6. Wickard Vs. Filburn US Supreme Court · Nov 09, 1942
  7. Bacchus Imports, Ltd. Vs. Dias US Supreme Court · Jun 29, 1984
  8. Lau Vs. Nichols US Supreme Court · Jan 21, 1974
  9. U.S. 203 (1987) U.S. Supreme Court South Dakota v. Dole
    Search
  10. U.S. 203 (1987) South Dakota v. Dole
    Search
  11. the proper scope of the Twenty-first Amendment. Relying on our statement in California Retail Liquor Dealers Assn. v. Midcal
    Search
  12. the meaning of the Twenty-first Amendment, the bounds of which have escaped precise definition. Bacchus Imports, Ltd. v. Dias
    Search
  13. U. S. 448 , 448 U. S. 474 (1980) (opinion of Burger, C.J.). See Lau v. Nichols
    Search
  14. Oklahoma Page 483 U. S. 207 v. Civil
    Search
  15. Steward Machine Co. v. Davis
    Search
  16. U. S. 548 (1937). The breadth of this power was made clear in United States v. Butler
    Search
  17. grant of federal funds. The spending power is of course not unlimited, Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman
    Search
  18. See Helvering v. Davis
    Search
  19. is intended to serve general public purposes, courts should defer substantially to the judgment of Congress. Helvering v. Davis
    Search
  20. Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman
    Search
  21. Massachusetts v. United
    Search
  22. U. S. 461 Page 483 U. S. 208 (1978) (plurality opinion). See also Ivanhoe Irrigation Dist. v. McCracken
    Search
  23. constitutional provisions may provide an independent bar to the conditional grant of federal funds. Lawrence County v. Lead-Deadwood
    Search
  24. King v. Smith
    Search
  25. Helvering v. Davis
    Search
  26. to the conditional grant of federal funds. Lawrence County v. Lead-Deadwood
    Search
  27. limitation on the spending power is not of the kind petitioner suggests. United States v. Butler
    Search
  28. state affairs did not concomitantly limit the range of conditions legitimately placed on federal grants. In Oklahoma v. Civil
    Search
  29. Id. at 330 U. S. 143 -144 (citation omitted). See also Steward Machine Co. v. Davis
    Search
  30. Massachusetts v. Mellon
    Search
  31. is a judicially enforceable restriction at all. See Buckley v. Valeo
    Search
  32. Oklahoma v. Civil
    Search
  33. the expenditure must be for the general welfare, Helvering v. Davis
    Search
  34. U. S. 640 -641 (1937), the conditions imposed must be unambiguous, Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman
    Search
  35. U. S. 17 (1981), they must be reasonably related to the purpose of the expenditure, Massachusetts v. United
    Search
  36. U. S. 461 , and the legislation may not violate any independent constitutional prohibition, Lawrence County v. Lead-Deadwood
    Search
  37. grants under the spending power only in ways reasonably related to the purpose of the federal program. Massachusetts v. United
    Search
  38. Id. at 19-20. This approach harks back to United States v. Butler
    Search
  39. but it was regulation that today would likely be considered within Congress' commerce power. See, e.g., Katzenbach v. McClung
    Search
  40. grants in ways that can fairly be said to be related to the expenditure of federal funds. For example, in Oklahoma v. CSC
    Search
  41. by the Court may be viewed as independently justified under some regulatory power of the Congress. Thus, in Fullilove v. Klutznick
    Search
  42. of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at 448 U. S. 476 , 448 U. S. 478 . See also Lau v. Nichols
    Search
  43. within the scope of those powers reserved to the States by the Twenty-first Amendment. Capital Cities Cable, Inc. v. Crisp
    Search
  44. U. S. 691 , 467 U. S. 716 (1984). As I emphasized in 324 Liquor Corp. v. Duffy
    Search
  45. United States ought not obscure its fundamental character. It remains a Government of enumerated powers. McCulloch v. Maryland
    Search
  46. U.S. Supreme Court South Dakota v. Dole
    Search
  47. California Retail Liquor Dealers Assn. v. Midcal
    Search
  48. of Burger, C.J.). See Lau v. Nichols
    Search
  49. of Congress. Helvering v. Davis
    Search
  50. Lawrence County v. Lead-Deadwood
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial