Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Reno v. Condon 528 U.S. 141

Reno v. Condon 528 U.S. 141

Ratings: (0)|Views: 34 |Likes:
Published by Thalia Sanders

More info:

Published by: Thalia Sanders on Aug 23, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

08/23/2010

pdf

text

original

 
Westlaw Delivery Summary Report for PATRON ACCESS,-
Date/Time of Request: Monday, August 23, 2010 12:44 EasternClient Identifier: PATRON ACCESSDatabase: SCTFINDCitation Text: 120 S.Ct. 666Lines: 423Documents: 1Images: 0
business law 2
The material accompanying this summary is subject to copyright. Usage is governed by contract with Thomson Reuters,West and their affiliates.
 
Supreme Court of the United StatesJanet RENO, Attorney General, et al., Petitionersv.Charlie CONDON, Attorney General of South Car-olina, et al.
No. 98-1464.
Argued Nov. 10, 1999.Decided Jan. 12, 2000.State of South Carolina and its Attorney Generalbrought action against the United States, challen-ging the constitutionality of the Driver's PrivacyProtection Act (DPPA) which restricts the ability of the states to disclose a driver's personal informationwithout the driver's consent. The United States Dis-trict Court for theDistrict of South Carolina, 972F.Supp. 977,granted summary judgment toplaintiffs. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals,155F.3d 453,affirmed. The United States petitioned forcertiorari which was granted. The Supreme Court,Chief JusticeRehnquist, held that: (1) the DPPA is a proper exercise of Congress' authority to regulateinterstate commerce under the Commerce Clause,and (2) the DPPA does not violate the principles of federalism contained in the Tenth Amendment.Reversed.West Headnotes
[1]Commerce 83 82.20
83Commerce83IIApplication to Particular Subjects andMethods of Regulation83II(K)Miscellaneous Subjects and Regula- tions83k82.20k. Subjects and Regulations inGeneral.Most Cited Cases
Records 326 31
326Records326IIPublic Access326II(A)In General 326k31k. Regulations Limiting Access;Offenses.Most Cited CasesThe Driver's Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) whichrestricts the sale or release of a driver's personal in-formation is a proper exercise of Congress' author-ity to regulate interstate commerce under the Com-merce Clause; sale and release of such informationas an article of commerce in the interstate stream of business is sufficient to support congressional regu-lation.U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 1, § 8, cl. 3;18 U.S.C.A. §§ 2721-2725.
[2]Records 326 31
326Records326IIPublic Access326II(A)In General 326k31k. Regulations Limiting Access;Offenses.Most Cited Cases
States 360 4.16(3)
360States360IPolitical Status and Relations360I(A)In General 360k4.16Powers of United States and In-fringement on State Powers360k4.16(3)k. Surrenderof State Sov-ereignty and Coercion of State.Most Cited CasesThe Driver's Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) whichrestricts the nonconsensual sale or release by a stateof a driver's personal information does not violatethe principles of federalism contained in the TenthAmendment, as the Act does not require the statesin their sovereign capacity to regulate their own cit-izens, but regulates the states as the owners of data-bases.U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 10;18 U.S.C.A. §§ 2721-2725.
**667 *141
Syllabus
FN*FN*The syllabus constitutes no part of the120 S.Ct. 666 Page 1528 U.S. 141, 120 S.Ct. 666, 145 L.Ed.2d 587, 68 USLW 4037, 28 Media L. Rep. 1281, 00 Cal. Daily Op. Serv.306, 2000 Daily Journal D.A.R. 403, 2000 CJ C.A.R. 157, 13 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 50
(Cite as: 528 U.S. 141, 120 S.Ct. 666)
© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
 
opinion of the Court but has been preparedby the Reporter of Decisions for the con-venience of the reader. See
200 U.S.321, 337, 26 S.Ct. 282, 50 L.Ed. 499.State departments of motor vehicles (DMVs) re-quire drivers and automobile owners to provide per-sonal information, which may include a person'sname, address, telephone number, vehicle descrip-tion, Social Security number, medical information,and photograph, as a condition of obtaining adriver's license or registering an automobile. Find-ing that many States sell this information to indi-viduals and businesses for significant revenues,Congress enacted the Driver's Privacy ProtectionAct of 1994 (DPPA), which establishes a regulatoryscheme that restricts the States' ability to disclose adriver's personal information without the driver'sconsent. South Carolina law conflicts with theDPPA's provisions. Following the DPPA's enact-ment, South Carolina and its Attorney General filedthis suit, alleging that the DPPA violates the Tenthand Eleventh Amendments to the United StatesConstitution. Concluding that the DPPA is incom-patible with the principles of federalism inherent inthe Constitution's division of power between theStates and the Federal Government, the DistrictCourt granted summary judgment for the State andpermanently enjoined the DPPA's enforcementagainst the State and its officers. The Fourth Circuitaffirmed, concluding that the DPPA violates consti-tutional principles of federalism.
 Held:
In enacting the DPPA, Congress did not runafoul of the federalism principles enunciated in
521 U.S. 898, 117 S.Ct. 2365, 138 L.Ed.2d914.The Federal Government correctly asserts that theDPPA is a proper exercise of Congress' authority toregulate interstate commerce under the CommerceClause,U.S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 3. The motor vehicle information, which the States have historic-ally sold, is used by insurers, manufacturers, directmarketers, and others engaged in interstate com-merce to contact drivers with customized solicita-tions. The information is also used in the stream of interstate commerce by various public and privateentities for matters related to interstate motoring.Because drivers' personal, identifying informationis, in this context, an article of commerce, its saleor release into the interstate stream of business issufficient to
*142
support congressional regulation.See
514 U.S. 549, 558-559,115 S.Ct. 1624, 131 L.Ed.2d 626.This does notconclusively resolve the DPPA's constitutionalitybecause in
New York 
and
Printz
the Court held thatfederal statutes were invalid, not because Congresslacked legislative authority over the subject matter,but because those statutes violated Tenth Amend-ment federalism principles. However, the DPPAdoes
**668
not violate those principles. This case isinstead governed by
485U.S. 505, 108 S.Ct. 1355, 99 L.Ed.2d 592,in whicha statute prohibiting States from issuing unre-gistered bonds was upheld because it regulated stateactivities, rather than seeking to control or influ-ence the manner in which States regulated privateparties,
at 514-515, 108 S.Ct. 1355.Like thatstatute, the DPPA does not require the States intheir sovereign capacity to regulate their own cit-izens; rather, it regulates the States as the owners of data bases. It does not require the South CarolinaLegislature to enact any laws or regulations, as didthe statute at issue in
New York,
and it does not re-quire state officials to assist in the enforcement of federal statutes regulating private individuals, asdid the law considered in
Printz.
Thus, the DPPA isconsistent with the principles set forth in thosecases. The Court need not address South Carolina'sargument that the DPPA unconstitutionally regu-lates the States exclusively rather than by means of a generally applicable law. The DPPA is generallyapplicable because it regulates the universe of entit-ies that participate as suppliers to the market formotor vehicle information-the States as initial sup-pliers of the information in interstate commerce andprivate resellers or redisclosers of that informationin commerce. Pp. 671-672.120 S.Ct. 666 Page 2528 U.S. 141, 120 S.Ct. 666, 145 L.Ed.2d 587, 68 USLW 4037, 28 Media L. Rep. 1281, 00 Cal. Daily Op. Serv.306, 2000 Daily Journal D.A.R. 403, 2000 CJ C.A.R. 157, 13 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 50
(Cite as: 528 U.S. 141, 120 S.Ct. 666)
© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->